From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add nlopt.
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 13:02:32 +0200
Message-ID: <87futz5rqv.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87vb3twtgi.fsf@gnu.org> <87egah85e4.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87a8l5xc9w.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpo6n8y5.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49948)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1axY6s-0003LY-1r
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 07:03:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1axY6W-00055k-U2
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2016 07:03:16 -0400
In-reply-to: <87wpo6n8y5.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org


Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Hello!
>
> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> I think the licensing page on the website is pretty clear:
>> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/NLopt_License_and_Copyright
>>
>> From the page:
>>> The NLopt library is under the GNU Lesser General Public License
>>> (LGPL), and the copyrights are owned by a variety of authors.
>>
>> And:
>>> The combination of all of this software is under the conjunction of the
>>> license terms, and in particular they are limited by the most
>>> restrictive of the licenses for the portions, which in this case is the
>>> LGPL. (The other portions of NLopt are under LGPL-compatible,
>>> less-restrictive licenses like the MIT license. So, if you remove the
>>> LGPL portions, which are currently code by Ladislav Luksan, the
>>> remainder reverts to a looser license.)
>
> Still, according to luksan/COPYRIGHT, “[s]ubroutines PBUN, PNEW, PVAR,
> PSEN” are “for your personal use […] [n]ot for redistribution”.
>
> So my understanding is that we need to remove those four subroutines.
> The rest in that directory is LGPLv2.1+.
>
> WDYT?

I agree to your understanding.

A little later in the same file I found: "This library (with exception
of PBUN, PNEW, PVAR, PSEN) is a free software".

> I don’t see it at
> <https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines>.
> Debian has a package: <https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/nlopt>.
> Could you check if they apply any patches?

I haven't found any patches.  So I dug a little deeper and attempted to
remove them myself with a patch, but I haven't been able to find these
subroutines.

I ran the following commands on the root of the source directory:
grep -i -r "pbun" .
grep -i -r "pmin" .
grep -i -r "psen" .
grep -i -r "pvar" .

And I haven't found the routines.  So I think we're safe.  That could
also be why Debian doesn't have a patch for this either.

> Besides, I suggest reusing the bits about Guile bindings from the patch
> I sent.

Shall I prepare a new patch?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen