Debian Bug report logs - #435214
octave-sp: license is neither GPL-compatible nor DFSG-free

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: octave-sp: license is neither GPL-compatible nor DFSG-free

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:09:26 -0400

Package: octave-sp
Version: 1:2003-4
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1

The copyright file lists the following:

    COPYRIGHT 1994 LIEVEN VANDENBERGHE AND STEPHEN BOYD
    Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for 
    any purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire 
    notice is included in all copies of any software which is or includes
    a copy or modification of this software and in all copies of the 
    supporting documentation for such software.

Notice that it only grants permission to use/copy/modify "without fee".  
Thus, this software cannot be distributed commercially and hence 
violates the DFSG.  (Probably the authors intended "without fee" to 
apply to the permission, not as a condition on distribution etc., but 
unfortunately that does not follow unambiguously from a literal 
reading.)

However, I happen to know Stephen Boyd personally (he is a Stanford 
professor), and he is a big free-software and GNU/Linux proponent who 
would doubtless be happy to clarify the license terms (or just switch to 
the standard MIT/X11 license language) if contacted.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.16.33-vpsX (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages octave-sp depends on:
ii  atlas3-base [liblapack. 3.6.0-20.6       Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra
ii  fftw3                   3.1.2-2          library for computing Fast Fourier
ii  libc6                   2.6-2            GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libgcc1                 1:4.2-20070712-1 GCC support library
ii  libgfortran1            4.1.2-13         Runtime library for GNU Fortran ap
ii  libhdf5-serial-1.6.5-0  1.6.5-5+b1       Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) 
ii  libncurses5             5.6+20070716-1   Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libreadline5            5.2-3            GNU readline and history libraries
ii  libstdc++6              4.2-20070712-1   The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  octave2.1               1:2.1.73-13      GNU Octave language for numerical 
ii  zlib1g                  1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-5 compression library - runtime

octave-sp recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>, 435214@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: octave-sp: license is neither GPL-compatible nor DFSG-free

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:16:51 +0200

* Steven G. Johnson <stevenj@fftw.org> [2007-07-30 00:09]:

> Package: octave-sp
> Version: 1:2003-4
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.2.1
> 
> The copyright file lists the following:
> 
>     COPYRIGHT 1994 LIEVEN VANDENBERGHE AND STEPHEN BOYD
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for 
>     any purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire 
>     notice is included in all copies of any software which is or includes
>     a copy or modification of this software and in all copies of the 
>     supporting documentation for such software.
> 
> Notice that it only grants permission to use/copy/modify "without fee".  
> Thus, this software cannot be distributed commercially and hence 
> violates the DFSG.  (Probably the authors intended "without fee" to 
> apply to the permission, not as a condition on distribution etc., but 
> unfortunately that does not follow unambiguously from a literal 
> reading.)
> 
> However, I happen to know Stephen Boyd personally (he is a Stanford 
> professor), and he is a big free-software and GNU/Linux proponent who 
> would doubtless be happy to clarify the license terms (or just switch to 
> the standard MIT/X11 license language) if contacted.

I think that you are right: the sentence in the COPYRIGHT file is ambiguous
and must be clarified.  However, before contacting the upstream author, I
would like to know whether this package works with Octave 2.9.  Does anyone
know?  I have never used the semidef-oct package myself...

-- 
Rafael

Message #15 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

To: 435214@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: octave-sp: license is neither GPL-compatible nor DFSG-free

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:02:05 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I think that you are right: the sentence in the COPYRIGHT file is ambiguous
> and must be clarified.  However, before contacting the upstream author, I
> would like to know whether this package works with Octave 2.9.  Does anyone
> know?  I have never used the semidef-oct package myself...

Yes, it seems to work.  I just recompiled the Debian package for 
octave2.9, installed it, and tried a random lin_prog (linear programming) 
problem, and it looks okay.

Steven

Message #20 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>, 435214@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: octave-sp: license is neither GPL-compatible nor DFSG-free

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:06:42 +0200

* Steven G. Johnson <stevenj@fftw.org> [2007-07-30 14:02]:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > I think that you are right: the sentence in the COPYRIGHT file is ambiguous
> > and must be clarified.  However, before contacting the upstream author, I
> > would like to know whether this package works with Octave 2.9.  Does anyone
> > know?  I have never used the semidef-oct package myself...
> 
> Yes, it seems to work.  I just recompiled the Debian package for 
> octave2.9, installed it, and tried a random lin_prog (linear programming) 
> problem, and it looks okay.

Thanks for this info.  I will contact the upstream author.

-- 
Rafael

Message #25 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>, Stephen Boyd <boyd@isl.stanford.edu>, .@laboissiere.net

Cc: 435214@bugs.debian.org, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Subject: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:40:20 +0200

I am one of the members of the Debian Octave Group [1], which maintains the
Octave-related packages for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution.  Your
semidef_prog software, which was ported to Octave by A. S. Hodel, has been
packaged for Debian [2] since 1998.

Only recently, it has been brought to our attention [3] the fact that the
license terms in the semidef_prog's README file are incompatible with the 
Debian Free Software Guidelines [4].  At least, the phrase "distribute this
software for any purpose without fee" is ambiguous.

Unless the license terms are clarified or they are switched to some standard
license language (like MIT/X11 or GPL), we will be forced to removed the
package from Debian, which would be a pity for our users.

Just FYI, the semidef_prog software seem sto work correctly with the latest
version of Octave (2.9.13).

[1] http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org/
[2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/math/octave-sp
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
[4] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

(Please, respect the Reply-To header, in order to keep the discussion
recorded in our Bug Tracking System.  Thanks.)

Best regards,

-- 
Rafael Laboissiere 

Message #30 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>, Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>

Cc: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>, 435214@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:16:00 +0200

I am one of the members of the Debian Octave Group [1], which maintains the
Octave-related packages for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution.  Your
semidef_prog software, which was ported to Octave by A. S. Hodel, has been
packaged for Debian [2] since 1998.

Only recently, it has been brought to our attention [3] the fact that the
license terms in the semidef_prog's README file are incompatible with the 
Debian Free Software Guidelines [4].  At least, the phrase "distribute this
software for any purpose without fee" is ambiguous.

Unless the license terms are clarified or they are switched to some standard
license language (like MIT/X11 or GPL), we will be forced to removed the
package from Debian, which would be a pity for our users.

Just FYI, the semidef_prog software seem sto work correctly with the latest
version of Octave (2.9.13).

[1] http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org/
[2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/math/octave-sp
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
[4] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

(Please, respect the Reply-To header, in order to keep the discussion
recorded in our Bug Tracking System.  Thanks.)

Best regards,

-- 
Rafael Laboissiere 

Message #35 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>

To: 435214@bugs.debian.org, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Cc: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>, Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:41:48 -0700

rafael,

i am happy to switch the license to GNU, but of course we have to check 
with lieven.  as a coincidence i will see lieven tomorrow, when we can 
send the final confirmation.

however, it should be noted that semideg_prog is really quite old, and 
there are now far more recent solvers available for semidefinite 
programming.  i have not used semidef_prog for many years now.  i don't 
know which solver is best for linking to octave.

i (and many others too) do most of my day to day convex optimization 
work using cvx, which has a GNU license, but unfortunately, runs on top 
of matlab.  our plan (hope? goal?) however is to develop a full GNU 
system for modeling and solving convex optimization problems.  lieven's 
CVXOPT is a good start along these lines, but i am not sure how easy or 
hard it is to tie python/C into octave.  if you are interested in 
optimization software for octave, i'd be happy to chat; maybe we can 
help (beyond changing the license on ancient, but working, software to GNU).

stephen


Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> I am one of the members of the Debian Octave Group [1], which maintains the
> Octave-related packages for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution.  Your
> semidef_prog software, which was ported to Octave by A. S. Hodel, has been
> packaged for Debian [2] since 1998.
>
> Only recently, it has been brought to our attention [3] the fact that the
> license terms in the semidef_prog's README file are incompatible with the 
> Debian Free Software Guidelines [4].  At least, the phrase "distribute this
> software for any purpose without fee" is ambiguous.
>
> Unless the license terms are clarified or they are switched to some standard
> license language (like MIT/X11 or GPL), we will be forced to removed the
> package from Debian, which would be a pity for our users.
>
> Just FYI, the semidef_prog software seem sto work correctly with the latest
> version of Octave (2.9.13).
>
> [1] http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org/
> [2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/math/octave-sp
> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
> [4] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>
> (Please, respect the Reply-To header, in order to keep the discussion
> recorded in our Bug Tracking System.  Thanks.)
>
> Best regards,
>
>   

Message #40 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>, 435214@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>, Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:52:06 +0200

* Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu> [2007-07-31 16:41]:

> i (and many others too) do most of my day to day convex optimization 
> work using cvx, which has a GNU license, but unfortunately, runs on top 
> of matlab.  our plan (hope? goal?) however is to develop a full GNU 
> system for modeling and solving convex optimization problems.  lieven's 
> CVXOPT is a good start along these lines, but i am not sure how easy or 
> hard it is to tie python/C into octave.  if you are interested in 
> optimization software for octave, i'd be happy to chat; maybe we can 
> help (beyond changing the license on ancient, but working, software to GNU).

Thanks for your prompt reply.  I appreciate your efforts for clarifying the
license terms of semidef_prog, together with .

I suspected that semidef_prog was already an old albeit working software.  I
do not use optimization software very frequently and my interest is to
insure that the octave-sp package (derived from semidef_prog) will not
disappear from Debian.  Note that the number of users who already installed
the package is non-negligible [1].

As regards your proposal to get your more recent software ported to Octave,
I think it is a great idea.  The 2.9.* series of Octave has a improved
Matlab compatibility level, so the chances your packages will run on Octave
are increased.  Moreover there is already a group of developers of the
Octave-Forge project [2] working on optimization. They might be interested
in including your new software in their package [3].

At any rate, the more urgent thing to do is to clarify the semidef_prog
license terms, such that the package can be kept in Debian.

[1] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=semidef-oct
[2] http://octave.sourceforge.net/
[3] http://octave.sourceforge.net/optim/index.html

Regards,

-- 
Rafael

Message #45 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>

To: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>

Cc: 435214@bugs.debian.org, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:13:30 -0700

Rafael,

I can see why our license is  ambiguous.   When we wrote it in 1994, we 
intended it to mean that the program is entirely free, for any purpose 
(including commercial) and without any restriction.  

If it is easier if we switch to a standard free license, I would choose 
the LGPL.

Best regards,

Lieven

Stephen Boyd wrote:
> rafael,
>
> i am happy to switch the license to GNU, but of course we have to 
> check with lieven.  as a coincidence i will see lieven tomorrow, when 
> we can send the final confirmation.
>
> however, it should be noted that semideg_prog is really quite old, and 
> there are now far more recent solvers available for semidefinite 
> programming.  i have not used semidef_prog for many years now.  i 
> don't know which solver is best for linking to octave.
>
> i (and many others too) do most of my day to day convex optimization 
> work using cvx, which has a GNU license, but unfortunately, runs on 
> top of matlab.  our plan (hope? goal?) however is to develop a full 
> GNU system for modeling and solving convex optimization problems.  
> lieven's CVXOPT is a good start along these lines, but i am not sure 
> how easy or hard it is to tie python/C into octave.  if you are 
> interested in optimization software for octave, i'd be happy to chat; 
> maybe we can help (beyond changing the license on ancient, but 
> working, software to GNU).
>
> stephen
>
>
> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> I am one of the members of the Debian Octave Group [1], which 
>> maintains the
>> Octave-related packages for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution.  Your
>> semidef_prog software, which was ported to Octave by A. S. Hodel, has 
>> been
>> packaged for Debian [2] since 1998.
>>
>> Only recently, it has been brought to our attention [3] the fact that 
>> the
>> license terms in the semidef_prog's README file are incompatible with 
>> the Debian Free Software Guidelines [4].  At least, the phrase 
>> "distribute this
>> software for any purpose without fee" is ambiguous.
>>
>> Unless the license terms are clarified or they are switched to some 
>> standard
>> license language (like MIT/X11 or GPL), we will be forced to removed the
>> package from Debian, which would be a pity for our users.
>>
>> Just FYI, the semidef_prog software seem sto work correctly with the 
>> latest
>> version of Octave (2.9.13).
>>
>> [1] http://pkg-octave.alioth.debian.org/
>> [2] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/math/octave-sp
>> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
>> [4] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>>
>> (Please, respect the Reply-To header, in order to keep the discussion
>> recorded in our Bug Tracking System.  Thanks.)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>   
>
>

Message #50 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>, 435214@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:10:32 +0200

* Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu> [2007-08-06 09:13]:

> I can see why our license is  ambiguous.   When we wrote it in 1994, we 
> intended it to mean that the program is entirely free, for any purpose 
> (including commercial) and without any restriction.  
> 
> If it is easier if we switch to a standard free license, I would choose 
> the LGPL.

Thanks for your reply.  

As regards the Debian package, the best situation would be that you do a new
release of the software with the changed license. If you are not willing to
do it because semidef_prog is already old software and not maintained
anymore, I will release a new version of the package stating that it is 
released now under the LGPL (if Stephen Boyd agrees, of course) and will add
the URL of this bug report discussion [1].

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/435214

Best regards,

-- 
Rafael

Message #55 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>

To: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

Cc: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>, 435214@bugs.debian.org, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:50:25 -0700

whatever is easiest.  i am happy with semidef_prog having either license.

Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu> [2007-08-06 09:13]:
>
>   
>> I can see why our license is  ambiguous.   When we wrote it in 1994, we 
>> intended it to mean that the program is entirely free, for any purpose 
>> (including commercial) and without any restriction.  
>>
>> If it is easier if we switch to a standard free license, I would choose 
>> the LGPL.
>>     
>
> Thanks for your reply.  
>
> As regards the Debian package, the best situation would be that you do a new
> release of the software with the changed license. If you are not willing to
> do it because semidef_prog is already old software and not maintained
> anymore, I will release a new version of the package stating that it is 
> released now under the LGPL (if Stephen Boyd agrees, of course) and will add
> the URL of this bug report discussion [1].
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
>
> Best regards,
>
>   

Message #60 received at 435214@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>

To: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

Cc: Stephen Boyd <boyd@stanford.edu>, 435214@bugs.debian.org, "Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@fftw.org>

Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:43:14 -0700

Rafael,

I would prefer the second option, because we don't distribute the 
software any longer.  

Maybe it is sufficient to replace the old license under the copyright 
line in the C file with the standard LGPL header?    We can use version 
3 or higher of the LGPL, unless Octave has a different policy.

Thanks.

Lieven


Stephen Boyd wrote:
> whatever is easiest.  i am happy with semidef_prog having either license.
>
> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> * Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu> [2007-08-06 09:13]:
>>
>>  
>>> I can see why our license is  ambiguous.   When we wrote it in 1994, 
>>> we intended it to mean that the program is entirely free, for any 
>>> purpose (including commercial) and without any restriction. 
>>> If it is easier if we switch to a standard free license, I would 
>>> choose the LGPL.
>>>     
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. 
>> As regards the Debian package, the best situation would be that you 
>> do a new
>> release of the software with the changed license. If you are not 
>> willing to
>> do it because semidef_prog is already old software and not maintained
>> anymore, I will release a new version of the package stating that it 
>> is released now under the LGPL (if Stephen Boyd agrees, of course) 
>> and will add
>> the URL of this bug report discussion [1].
>>
>> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>   
>
>

Message #67 received at 435214-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>

To: 435214-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#435214: fixed in semidef-oct 1:2003-5

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:02:12 +0000

Source: semidef-oct
Source-Version: 1:2003-5

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
semidef-oct, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

octave-sp_2003-5_i386.deb
  to pool/main/s/semidef-oct/octave-sp_2003-5_i386.deb
semidef-oct_2003-5.diff.gz
  to pool/main/s/semidef-oct/semidef-oct_2003-5.diff.gz
semidef-oct_2003-5.dsc
  to pool/main/s/semidef-oct/semidef-oct_2003-5.dsc



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 435214@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> (supplier of updated semidef-oct package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Tue,  7 Aug 2007 16:48:44 +0200
Source: semidef-oct
Binary: octave-sp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1:2003-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Octave Group <pkg-octave-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Changed-By: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>
Description: 
 octave-sp  - Semidefinite Programming functions for GNU Octave
Closes: 432376 435214
Changes: 
 semidef-oct (1:2003-5) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   [ Cyril Brulebois ]
   * debian/control:
     - Updated versioned B-D on octave2.1-headers (from 2.1.65 to 1:2.1.73-14)
       to ensure the switch from gfortran to g77 happened, since gfortran now
       points to gfortran-4.2, which leads to FTBFS:
       ``/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgfortranbegin'' (Closes: #432376).
       Urgency set to ``high'' accordingly.
     - Added myself to the Uploaders field.
 .
   [ Rafael Laboissiere ]
   * debian/control: Actually, updated the build-dependency to
     octave2.9-headers, since 2.9 is the recommended version of Octave
     now.  The fix described above still holds.
   * debian/copyright: Added statement from the upstream authors about
     their agreement to switch the license of the package to LGPL
     (closes: #435214)
Files: 
 17517f85364fe0f84a7ef811c27aa676 924 math optional semidef-oct_2003-5.dsc
 c1588fd74e7ef21999579e880c251fbc 7662 math optional semidef-oct_2003-5.diff.gz
 864920ad0872b92565fc1ed0a371e1c6 325502 math optional octave-sp_2003-5_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG1oXkk3oga0pdcv4RAjcSAJwJ/PX/+bsRx/hDJ+ejvqt2KR4OZQCfXqUn
CD1M7iEXncchm9AHHhqlvqA=
=FO1J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.