elmerfem_5.4.1.dfsg-4_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 04:51 +0000, Mike O'Connor wrote: 
> REJECT:
> 
>     Many files say:
> "All rights reserved. No part of this program may be used, reproduced
> or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written
> permission of CSC."
>     but there's no explicit statement from upstream about the license.
> CSC stands for Center for Scientific Computing (Finland), Copyright
> owners

Yes there is, the file GPL-2 appears in three places, and the website
has a statement about use of the GPL [1], as well as a brochure and a
paper stating that it is licensed under the GPL [2] [3].

[1] http://www.csc.fi/english/csc/news/news/Elmer_2005-9-23
[2] http://www.csc.fi/english/csc/overview/service_areas/application_services/elmerbrochure
[3] http://www.csc.fi/english/pages/elmer/publications/GidElmer2006article.pdf

Also, the files fem/LICENSES and elmergrid/LICENSES specifically list
the code to which this does not apply, giving the upstream author and
license.

> Files: elmerpost/src/camera/glp* elmerpost/src/camera/context.cc elmerpost/src/camera/file.cc
>     Copyright: Michael Sweet (no explicit copyright notice)
>     License: LGPL
>      The GLP library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library
>      General Public License which is described in the file "COPYING.LIB".
>      If you use this library in your program, please include a line reading
>      "OpenGL Printing Toolkit by Michael Sweet" in your version or copyright
>      output.
>      .
>      On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU Library General Public License
>      Version 2 (the last version with "Library" in its name) can be found in file
>      "/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2".
> 
>      There is no COPYING.LIB so upstream doesn't clearly says which LGPL
>      they're referring to. According to copyright it seems to be LGPL2+, but it's
>      not clear.
> 
>     I have the feeling that the extra condition about the line that has to
>     be included in copyright output might be not compatible with GPL, under which
>     the main program is licensed.

This is wrong. "please include" does not imply "you must include", the
latter of which would be clearly GPL-incompatible.

Please reconsider your rejection based on the above arguments.

Also, this package was rejected earlier with a note only indicating that
I didn't point to the Debian LGPL common license file.  Was that earlier
report in error?

Elmer has been through the NEW queue three times now and requires a
fourth, each time because of new problems which previous ftpmasters did
not catch.  If for some reason you don't accept my above arguments, I'd
appreciate it if you either let it through on the basis of satisfying
the prior objections, or give it expedited consideration in the next
iteration.

-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20090120/8f41ae35/attachment.pgp