python-arpack license issues
Timothy G Abbott
split out as a separate Debian package.
The only problem I found is the following. The ARPACK software included
in Sage has the copyright license included below, which has some
potentially GPL-incompatible restrictions that probably also violate
Debian's Free Software Guidelines, namely the 3rd and 4th clauses:
"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."
I'm not sure whether this presents a problem for Sage itself (since I'm
uncertain whether ARPACK actually gets linked to any GPL code).
It appears that ARPACK is already in Debian despite this license issue.
I've filed a bug with Debian on this.
-Tim Abbott
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.
William Stein
> I just finished a copyright review of the parts of Sage which I've not
> split out as a separate Debian package.
>
> The only problem I found is the following. The ARPACK software included
> in Sage has the copyright license included below, which has some
> potentially GPL-incompatible restrictions that probably also violate
> Debian's Free Software Guidelines, namely the 3rd and 4th clauses:
>
> "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."
>
> I'm not sure whether this presents a problem for Sage itself (since I'm
> uncertain whether ARPACK actually gets linked to any GPL code).
I think it isn't. It is only linked with scipy as far as I know,
and scipy is BSD licensed. It also hence links with python,
but python is also not GPL'd.
By the way, if we wanted to switch from GNUtls to openssl,
do you think that would be a problem? Note that openssl
is only used by sage to provide a certain python extension
module. Then Python combines the GPL'd sage library with
the GPL-incompatible openssl library only at runtime.
- William
>
> It appears that ARPACK is already in Debian despite this license issue.
> I've filed a bug with Debian on this.
>
> -Tim Abbott
>
> Rice BSD Software License
> Permits source and binary redistribution of the software ARPACK and
> P_ARPACK for both non-commercial and commercial use.
>
> Copyright ((c)) 2001, Rice University
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
Timothy G Abbott
> By the way, if we wanted to switch from GNUtls to openssl,
> do you think that would be a problem? Note that openssl
> is only used by sage to provide a certain python extension
> module. Then Python combines the GPL'd sage library with
> the GPL-incompatible openssl library only at runtime.
I suspect that would be fine, but to be sure I'd need to do some
investigations. Remind me when I'm not swamped with the upcoming deadline
and I'll look into it.
-Tim Abbott