Package: libelmersolver-6.1 Version: 6.1.0.svn.5396.dfsg2-2 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.3 User: debian-science-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: scotch-license-issues
Hello, it was previously [1] noticed that Elmer links with SCOTCH, which is GPL-incompatible. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/618696#34 Unfortunately, it seems to me that the issue is deeper than it appeared to be. Let's start from the beginning. SCOTCH [2] is under the terms of the CeCILL-C license, which is GPL-incompatible, since it includes some restrictions not included in the GPL (at the very least, the choice of venue clause) and has no explicit conversion-to-GPL clause. An analysis of this license may be found on the debian-legal archives [3]. [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/scotch.html [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00171.html The library /usr/lib/libelmersolver-6.1.so links with: => libdmumps_scotch-4.10.0.so, which is public domain, but is linked with the GPL-incompatible libscotch-5.1.so => libumfpack.so.5.6.2, which [4] is under the GNU GPL v2 or later => libcholmod.so.2.1.2, which [4] has parts under the GNU GPL v2 or later [4] http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/s/suitesparse/unstable_copyright This seems to mean that package libelmersolver-6.1 includes a file which links with both GPL-licensed and GPL-incompatible libraries. I think the possible solutions to this licensing issue are, in descending order of desirability: (A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms (B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-or-later-compatible replacement, if any is available (C) GPL-licensed library (such as UMFPACK and CHOLMOD) copyright holders should be asked to relax the copyleft (for instance by switching the LGPL v2.1) or add license exceptions that give permission to link their works with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0 The best solution is (A): having SCOTCH re-licensed under GPLv2-or-later-compatible terms would eliminate all the SCOTCH license incompatibility issues. Since SCOTCH used to be LGPL-licensed (before switching to CeCILL-C! oh nooo!), I got in touch with the main author of SCOTCH (François Pellegrini) and tried to persuade him that SCOTCH should be re-licensed, in the hope that he would discuss the issue with the actual copyright holders (INRIA) and obtain the necessary paperwork. I talked to him in 2011, explaining the issue, but I apparently failed to convince him that there indeed is an issue. I have recently tried again to get in touch with him, but I haven't succeeded. Now I really need your help: please try hard to pursue solution (A). Succeeding would solve the issue for elmerfem, but also really benefit several other packages which suffer from similar problems with SCOTCH. I still have to file bug reports against those other packages, but I'll do so sooner or later. I hope you are OK with the usertag I set for this bug report: I intend to use it for the other similar reports as well. Thanks for your time and let's hope this issue may be solved for the best real soon now! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
