(Resend, as the first copy appears to have gone missing)
The beignet package is mostly under LGPL2.1, but since version 1.0.0,
has included 2 files based on gpuocelot (
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-opencl/beignet.git/tree/backend/src/ir/structural_analysis.cpp
), under BSD-3 plus this a
The beignet package is mostly under LGPL2.1, but since version 1.0.0,
has included 2 files based on gpuocelot (
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-opencl/beignet.git/tree/backend/src/ir/structural_analysis.cpp
), under BSD-3 plus this additional clause:
You agree that the Software will not be
An outdated debian/copyright file is a bug in itself...
That's already fixed in Alioth.
depending on how those two files are bundled together with the rest
of beignet
They get linked into the same library (libgbe.so) as several LGPL2.1
files (search
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?
(Summary of previous discussion: beignet 1.0+ contains 2 files based on
gpuocelot[0], under a license that is not allowed in Debian[1,2], and is
possibly LGPL-incompatible enough to prohibit distribution of beignet
binaries[1,4]. Current gpuocelot[3] has a new top-level LICENSE notice
without
beignet upstream have agreed that this is a problem, and are currently
awaiting a reply from gpuocelot upstream.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/
beignet upstream have now fixed this by removing the offending code, and
I have pushed this to Alioth as 1.0.3+dfsg. There has been no public
response from gpuocelot upstream [0].
Given that the license restricts redistribution, does it prohibit
packaging gpuocelot even in non-free? If so, w
Control: tags -1 wontfix
Most of gpuocelot is not BSD but "BSD plus you must obey US export
restrictions (even if you are not in the US)" [0]. This is both
non-DFSG-free [1] and impractical for Debian to enforce, and is hence
not permitted even in non-free [2].
gpuocelot's authors have been
As far as I can find, neither the FSF nor the GNUnet project [0] has
officially commented (did GNUnet even know that those GitHub mirrors of
it existed? they weren't its primary repository, as the FSF already had
a policy of not hosting on GitHub for different reasons [1]). It has
been mentio
The FSF has now posted
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/do-githubs-updated-terms-of-service-conflict-with-copyleft
: they also don't think GitHub intended the scarier interpretations, but
are asking GitHub for clarification.
Many packages include code snippets from, or based on, Stack Overflow
answers [0].
Stack Overflow user-posted content is under CC-BY-SA (the version
depending on its age) [1], which is a libre license but usually not the
license these packages claim to be under. Also, attribution is usually
Source: openpyxl
Version: 3.0.9-2
Severity: serious
licensecheck -r --copyright . on openpyxl finds these:
./openpyxl/formatting/tests/data/conditional-formatting.xlsx: UNKNOWN
[Copyright: 2007 Apple Inc.]
./openpyxl/reader/tests/data/complex-styles.xlsx: UNKNOWN
[Copyright: 2007 Apple Inc.]
11 matches
Mail list logo
