RE: ARPACK situation

[Lehoucq, Richard]

Jussi,

Thanks for your helpful comments and clarification. I think upstream is 
interested and they are reading your emails.

--rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jussi Lehtola [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:53 AM
> To: Lehoucq, Richard
> Cc: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso; address@hidden; Kristi Maschhoff;
> address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; Octave
> Maintainers List; Debian Scientific Computing Team; Christophe
> Prud'homme; address@hidden; Justin Lecher; John W. Eaton; Rik;
> David Bateman; address@hidden; Rafael Goncalves Martins;
> address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: ARPACK situation
> 
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 03:04:55 +0000
> "Lehoucq, Richard" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Jordi,
> >
> > Thank you for your well articulated email. ARPACK is the property of
> > Rice University and so any "upstream" decision ultimately resides
> > with Rice.
> 
> But this is not really the question, is it? The ARPACK code is BSD
> licensed, which means anyone can take it and do practically anything
> with it. Creating a fork is allowed. Or even changing the license.
> 
> Since upstream has no interest in maintaining the code, we're talking
> about building a community to maintain an "official" distribution.
> Otherwise things will be as they used to: every software project will
> actually carry a fork of their own, with a different applied patch set.
> And this is far from optimal.
> --
> Jussi Lehtola
> Fedora Project Contributor
> address@hidden