Bug#741303: libfeel++1: libfeelpp.so.1.0.0 links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries

[Christophe Prud'homme]

severity 741303 important
thanks

Feel++ links with petsc which has the same bug  [1]  and I feel quite the
same as Anton about the situation
 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741196

Waiting for ftpmaster to take a decision.

Best regards
C.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Francesco Poli <invernomuto at paranoici.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:52:34 +0100 Christophe Prud'homme wrote:
>
> > Dear Francesco Poli
>
> Hello Christophe,
> thanks for commenting my bug report.
>
> >
> > What is the state of this bug ? any progress with respect to scotch
> > licensing ?
>
> I am not aware of any progress: I am the bug report submitter and, as I
> said in the original bug report, I need help from other people who
> volunteer to get in touch with the upstream developer of SCOTCH and
> persuade him to re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL.
> I have already tried to do so in the past, but I failed to convince him
> that there is an issue.
>
> Please (re-)read https://bugs.debian.org/740463#5 for the full story.
>
> Are you willing to help?
>
> If so, please contact the main author of SCOTCH and explain the
> licensing headaches he is causing to several other projects.
> If you manage to persuade him (to get the necessary paperwork) to
> re-license SCOTCH under the LGPL v2.1 or, at least, to dual-license it
> under the GNU LGPL v2.1 or the CeCILL-C v1.0 (at the recipient's
> choice), all the GPL-incompatibility issues will instantly vanish!
>
> >
> > this is a really painful situation !
>
> Indeed.
>
> >
> > are petsc and all libraries (based on umfpack) related to this bug issues
> > marked for removal from testing ?
>
> By looking at http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi
> it seems to me that feel++ and getdp are marked for auto-removal from
> Debian testing, while other packages affected by SCOTCH licensing
> issues are not (yet?) on the list.
> I am not sure why (maybe because they are not leaf packages?).
>
> The complete list of SCOTCH licensing bug reports is
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;tag=scotch-license-issues;users=debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> >
> > have you marked also octave with an RC bug ? it  uses suitesparse/umfpack
> > and scotch [1]
>
> Could you please elaborate?
> I cannot spot the dependency of octave on scotch...
>
> > Basically all libraries/programs using suitesparse/umfpack should have
> this
> > bug, no ?
>
> Only when they contain a file which (directly or indirectly) links with
> both SCOTCH and some GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK)...
>
> > I think Libreoffice/Openoffice  are using suitesparse(and scotch) and
> glpk
> > so it should also have the RC bug.
>
> libreoffice? glpk?
> Could you please help me to find the dependency on scotch? I fail to
> see it...
>
> >
> > I guess that the technical solution would be to get rid of umfpack but
> then
> > that would disrupt a lot of software !
>
> I think I clearly illustrated the solutions that I consider as
> acceptable: see my original bug report(s).
> Solution (A) is the most desirable, that's why I called for help to
> push in that direction...
>
> I hope this clarifies.
>
>
>
> --
>  http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
>  New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
> ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
>  GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20140818/eaf2f77e/attachment.html>