Your message dated Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:10:07 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line arpack removed from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #491794,
regarding arpack: DFSG-incompatible license
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
491794: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=491794
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: arpack
Severity: serious
I believe the Rice BSD Software License of arpack violates the Debian Free
Software guidelines (I've included it below for convenience of reference).
Both parts of the fourth clause of the license below seem to violate the
DFSG. The first violates the standard Desert Island and Dissident tests.
I believe it has also been concluded in the past that requiring users to
cite software is not allowed, which the second sentence violates.
The third clause also seems to violate clause (4) of the DFSG, since it is
a restriction on distributing modifications other than the specifically
allowed restriction of requiring the separate distribution of patch files.
-Tim Abbott
The ARPACK license is BSD-like.
http://www.caam.rice.edu/software/ARPACK/RiceBSD.doc
Rice BSD Software License
Permits source and binary redistribution of the software ARPACK and
P_ARPACK for both non-commercial and commercial use.
Copyright (©) 2001, Rice University
Developed by D.C. Sorensen, R.B. Lehoucq, C. Yang, and K. Maschhoff.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
. If you modify the source for these routines we ask that you change the
name of the routine and comment the changes made to the original.
. Written notification is provided to the developers of intent to use
this software. Also, we ask that use of ARPACK is properly cited in
any resulting publications or software documentation.
. Neither the name of Rice University (RICE) nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY RICE AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL RICE OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.1+parpack96-7+rm
Hi,
arpack has been removed from unstable, so this bug can be closed.
Testing needs to remove arpack with freemat and arpack++ and update apbs
(cheers to Michael Banck for uploading that already).
The freemat maintainer has indicated he can fix the package but was not
inclined to do so until he was sure we'd do something about #491794 (bug
CCed now).
As far as arpack and arpack++ is concerned, I'd be happy to expedit
NEW-processing if people want to try to get it into non-free fast, but
the copyright/license-status of arpack++ probably needs clarification, too.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
--- End Message ---
