[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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464432
--- 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