Bug#617931: gmsh: multiple licensing issues

[Christophe Geuzaine]

All,

I've clarified the licensing terms to make it clear that we mean "GPL v2 
or later".

Best,

Christophe

On 12/03/11 18:03, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote:
> Package: gmsh
> Version: 2.5.0.dfsg-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.2.1
>
> Hello again Debian Science Maintainers,
> thanks for maintaining gmsh, as well.
>
> This package is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 and links
> with libgsl0ldbl, which is released under the terms of the GNU
> GPL v3 [1].
>
> [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gsl/gsl_1.14+dfsg-1/libgsl0ldbl.copyright
>
> This may cause a first licensing issue.
> If gmsh is under the GNU GPL v2 only, I would say that the binary
> package is currently undistributable, as it links with a
> GPLv2-incompatible library (GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2).
> If, on the other hand, gmsh is under the GNU GPL v2 or later, there's
> no problem between gmsh and libgsl0ldbl.
>
> The official gmsh homepage says:
>
> | Gmsh is copyright (C) 1997-2009 by C. Geuzaine and J.-F. Remacle
> | and is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> | (GPL) [2] (with an exception [3] to allow for easier linking with
> | external libraries).
>
> [2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> [3] http://www.geuz.org/gmsh/doc/LICENSE.txt
>
> Link [2] currently describes the GNU GPL v3 and link [3] says
> "GNU General Public License (GPL)" without specifying the version,
> but then includes the full text of GPLv2.
>
> It's not clear to me what the Gmsh copyright holders mean:
> "GPL v2 only", "GPL v2 or later", or "GPL any version"?
> I think a clarification should be asked to them.
> If the answer is "GPL v2 only", then I think that the
> possible solutions are:
>
>   (1A) GSL copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to
> re-license GSL under GPLv2-compatible terms (such as "GPL v2 or
> later", for instance: take into account that GSL was previously
> released under GPLv2 and later switched to GPLv3...).
>
>   (1B) GSL should be substituted with a GPLv2-compatible replacement,
> if any is available.
>
>   (1C) Gmsh copyright holders should be persuaded to re-license
> Gmsh under the terms of the "GNU GPL v2 or later"
>
>
> BTW, the exception [3] grants permission to combine Gmsh
> with TetGen, Netgen, Chaco and METIS, but the debian/copyright file
> of the gmsh package does not mention this fact.
> I think that the debian/copyright file should be fixed.
> Do you want me to file a separate bug report for this issue?
>
>
> Another licensing issue arises since gmsh links with
> libopencascade-*-6.3.0, which is released under the terms of the
> (GPL-incompatible) OCTPL v6.3: this is similar to bug #617613 [4].
>
> [4] http://bugs.debian.org/617613
>
> I would say that gmsh (the binary package) is currently
> undistributable, as it is GPL-licensed and links with both a
> GPLv3-licensed library and a GPL-incompatible one.
>
> Here are the possible solutions I can think of:
>
>   (2A) Open CASCADE S.A.S. should be contacted and persuaded to
> re-license Open CASCADE Technology under GPLv2-and-v3-compatible terms.
>
>   (2B) Open CASCADE Technology should be substituted with a
> GPLv2-and-v3-compatible replacement, if any is available.
>
>   (2C) Gmsh and GSL copyright holders should be asked to add a
> license exception that gives permission to link Gmsh and GSL with
> code released under the OCTPL.
>
> The most desirable solution is (2A): as explained in bug #617613 [4],
> I need help in persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to switch to the GNU
> LGPL v2.1, so, once again, please join me in this persuasion effort!
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Prof. Christophe Geuzaine
University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine