Re: eigs and Octave.app

[David Bateman]

Thomas Weber wrote:
> Am Montag, den 12.11.2007, 19:24 +0100 schrieb David Bateman:
>   
>> Note ARPACK is a fedora package for example as it has been cleared by
>> their lawyers for distribution in Fedora..
>>     
>
> Are you sure? RiceBSD.doc is listed under "not okay" at 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
>   

Well the situation is mixed. In the bug report

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234191

it is clearly left open. Whereas in the bug report

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967

It clearly states from FE-Legal that it is alright to distribution
Arpack with Fedora. The statement is

<quote=Tom Callaway>
Include the clarification attachment in the package as %doc, and we're good.

This is really unenforceable anyways, as it amounts to a "please do this" as
opposed to a "you must do this".

Lifting FE-Legal
</quote>

and the RPM is available, check

http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/5304980/com/arpack-2.1-7.fc8.x86_64.rpm.html

So yes I stick by the statement that FE-Legal has cleared the
distribution of ARPACK with Fedora with the additional of the
clarification from Sorensen.. That is not to say that the package is GPL
compatible as the clarification doesn't release other developers from
the offending clause if they use the code in a project other than Fedora
or Octave..

>
>   
>>>   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>   modification, are permitted provided that the foll
>>>       
>> I'd like nothing better given the effort I put into writing the eigs
>> function. I'm just not willing to chase Sorensen at this point, but
>> would endorse anyone else who did.
>>     
>
> I wonder if using ARPACK all over the place and hence flooding Rice with
> letters would be an effective way of encouragement for a license
> change ;)
>   
I don't think you realize how ridiculous the clause really is.. It
requires an e-mail to a certain address to state that you are using
Arpack. The authors of Arpack have stated to me that no one ever looks
at these mails as there is too much spam mixed in with the real users of
Arpack to make the signal-to-noise ratio unacceptable. Therefore
flooding them them license requests is just a bit more spam in their
inbox. There is also legal doubt from FE-Legal in the thread above that
calls doubt on whether the clause in enforceable. However, I prefer to
live by the intent of the license when using code, out of respect for
the codes author, and so enforceable or not the clause (with its
clarification) should be respected.

Regards
David




>       Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
>
>   


-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary