bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

[Max Horn]

Hi there,

The license of the "flint" package is currently set to gpl2+ but it really is lgpl2.1+

Also, there was a bugfix release 2.6. which you might want to update to.

Cheers
Max

bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 301 bytes --]

Hullo Max,

Max Horn 写道：
> The license of the "flint" package is currently set to gpl2+ but 
> it really is lgpl2.1+

Could you elaborate?  How did you test this?

> Also, there was a bugfix release 2.6. which you might want to 
> update to.

Done, thanks!

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

[Max Horn]

Hi,

> Am 08.08.2020 um 16:56 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>:
> 
> Hullo Max,
> 
> Max Horn 写道：
>> The license of the "flint" package is currently set to gpl2+ but it really is lgpl2.1+
> 
> Could you elaborate?  How did you test this?

What, that the license is lgpl2.1+ ? That's what the website states (right at the top of the front page), along with an explanation that the license changed from 2.5 to 2.6. It is also what the README and the LICENSE files state.

So it looks to me as if whoever updated the package from 2.5.2 to 2.6.0 did not pay attention and missed the license change.


> 
>> Also, there was a bugfix release 2.6. which you might want to update to.
> 
> Done, thanks!

Great!

Cheers
Max
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> T G-R

bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

Max,

Max Horn 写道：
> What, that the license is lgpl2.1+ ?

Yes.

> That's what the website states (right at the top of the front 
> page), along with an explanation that the license changed from 
> 2.5 to 2.6. It is also what the README and the LICENSE files 
> state.

I'm aware.  That's why I considered it implausible that...

> whoever updated the package from 2.5.2 to 2.6.0 did not pay 
> attention and missed the license change.

Of course only Jakub (CC'd) can know for sure.  :-)

I opened an issue[0] upstream earlier today but no reply yet.  If 
these GPL2+ headers are meaningful *in any jurisdiction*, we 
*can't* claim that our FLINT is LGPL2+.  Nor can upstream.

I was unable to build FLINT without these files.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: https://github.com/wbhart/flint2/issues/812

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

bug#42759: Flint license is wrong

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]

Hah,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道：
> I opened an issue[0] upstream earlier today but no reply yet.

Naturally, as soon as I send this, I get a notification this will 
be fixed upstream.[0]

I'll add a comment to our flint package that the licence can be 
changed to LGPL-2.1+ on the next FLINT release.

Thanks!  Closing,

T G-R

> [0]: https://github.com/wbhart/flint2/issues/812

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

bug#42759: Flint licence updated

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 113 bytes --]

Commit eefa30c1c6db0772fc1af16de57e71b607903b56 updates Flint to 
2.6.3 which is now LGPL.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]