On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:43:37 -0400 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] > Hi Francesco,
Hi Adam! > > You mentioned elsewhere (I think your bug against salome) that the > CeCILL-C license of scotch is not GPL-compatible. (Can you describe why > or send a link?) Sure, here's an analysis of the CeCILL-C license: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00171.html > > If that's the case, then Elmer has a problem because it links with > Scotch. Well spotted, I didn't notice it! > That's not one of the original issues of this bug, but is very > much a licensing issue. It definitely seems to be one. > > More seriously, upstream distributes Elmer with METIS, which is very > non-free, and with no linking exception. (The .dfsg package removes the > METIS code from the tree.) As the copyright holders, this is their > prerogative, but anyone else who distributes them together risks a > copyright violation. > > Let me see if upstream will work with me on this, as they did a linking > exception for OpenCASCADE. I think the possible solutions, in descending order of desirability, are: (A) SCOTCH copyright holders should be contacted and persuaded to re-license (or dual-license) it under GPLv2-compatible terms. (B) SCOTCH should be substituted with a GPLv2-compatible replacement, if any is available. (C) GPL-licensed work (Elmer and any other work that indirectly links with SCOTCH through Elmer) copyright holders should be asked to add license exceptions that give permission to link their work with code released under CeCILL-C v1.0 . Before contacting Elmer upstream (and possibly other GPL-licensed work upstream), I would try solution (A), or maybe (B). Adding linking exception should be regarded as a last resort strategy... -- 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
pgpeWYNgYmWkp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
