[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Oct 2 09:00:04 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2008-10-02 05:00:03 EDT ---
> external_libs/expokit is non-free and must be removed from distributed sources
> unless you can convince its authors to relicense it under a free license.
> external_libs/metis-4.0 is non-free.
> external_libs/qshep is non-free as well.

Oh my, you are right. This is a showstopper. I'm contacting upstream to see
whether they have any plans to migrate to free implementations.

Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files?

> - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license.
> License: GPLv2+
> Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+
> sources are "upgraded" to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct.

OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website.
You'd think the developers had their licenses right..

> SRPM source file doesn't match upstream:
> 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e  octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz
> e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f  octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm

Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list