Re: Trilinos licensing

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote: > The "public domain" statement implicitly refers to a piece of > 3rd-party code, murmurhash > , which > is released "as public domain" and part of which is included in > Trilinos.

Re: Trilinos licensing

> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes: NS> The "public domain" statement implicitly refers to a piece of NS> 3rd-party code, murmurhash Yes. I had looked into licensing issues for a couple of related package some weeks earlier, and misremembered which was which. My comment does apply to a couple

Re: Trilinos licensing

> * James Cloos: > >>> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes: >> >> NS> I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. >> >> Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US >> federal government employees as part of their work cannot have >> copyright; they are al

Re: Trilinos licensing

* James Cloos: >> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes: > > NS> I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. > > Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US > federal government employees as part of their work cannot have > copyright; they are always in the

Re: Trilinos licensing

> Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US > federal government employees as part of their work cannot have > copyright; they are always in the public domain. The "public domain" statement implicitly refers to a piece of 3rd-party code, murmurhash

Re: Trilinos licensing

> "NS" == Nico Schlömer writes: NS> I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. Sandia is a US federal government institution; works created by US federal government employees as part of their work cannot have copyright; they are always in the public domain. A widely d

Re: Trilinos licensing

Hello, On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:42:54 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote: > > (and wow, I've missed that for years, thanks, Richard) > You might like my FOSDEM 2014 talk on license compatibility or some > parts of it at least. There's an amusing moment where I am informed > that Ian Jackson is Ian Jacks

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:42:54PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Not that I can recall. I have encountered one, but only one, project > that explicitly invoked this clause but I can't recall whether it > arose out of a license compatibility issue or simply a desire to > upgrade to GPL for its own

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:29:28PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:07:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of > > LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of > > LGPLv2.x > > >

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:07:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of > LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of > LGPLv2.x > > (even though its requirements are almost never followed in > any relevant s

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:25:08PM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > Also keep in mind GPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1 (hard) are not compatable. Why not? The traditional (though possibly retro-justified) theory of LGPLv2.x compatibility with GPLv2 is the 'convert to GPL' section 3 of LGPLv2.x (even though its

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:39PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > What about interoperability of Apache2 with LGPL2.1? Here's a GPL-centric image to show off license interop with common licenses: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-REQ3wEST4I/TEc2k263n-I/Afo/lpwAI5Twml8/s1600/quick-guide-gplv3-comp

Re: Trilinos licensing

What about interoperability of Apache2 with LGPL2.1? I was also a little worried about the "public domain" disclaimer. After all, "public domain is not a license and the copyright holder may choose to retract the software from PD at any moment" . The "Bis

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:59:06PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > Both of those licenses sound great and compatable. Provided it's not > > BSD-4. > > It's 3-clause, so we're good. Great :) > > https://www.debian.org/social_contract > > > > contains the DFSG, our guidelines for free software wor

Re: Trilinos licensing

various institutions. Can you say anything about their interoperability and Debian compatibility of those licenses? Cheers, Nico On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: >> Unfortunately, Trilinos&#x

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > (I could disable certain subpackages if the licensing does not > concur with Debian's policies.) Whoops, missed this part. Both the binaries and source package must also comply with these terms - which is to say, nonfree stuff in the

Re: Trilinos licensing

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > Unfortunately, Trilinos' licensing is not exactly straightforward. Alas; this happens. > Most of it is BSD-licensed, part of if LGPL, with some contributions > of other licenses mixed in; Both of those licenses s

Trilinos licensing

Hi all, I'm about to create a Debian package for Trilinos, an extensive collection of numerical tools developed at the Sandia National Labs. Unfortunately, Trilinos' licensing is not exactly straightforward. Most of it is BSD-licensed, part of if LGPL, with some contributions of othe