fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:16:51AM +0100, David Ham wrote:
> On 08/09/10 02:55, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> >On 9/8/10 2:22 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 07/09/10 17:07, Johan Hake wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday September 7 2010 01:12:02 Harish Narayanan wrote:
> >>>>On 9/7/10 12:27 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 08:26:03AM +0530, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> >>>>>>On 9/6/10 7:13 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>>>eA bunch of different licenses are used for various FEniCS
> >>>>>>>components,
> >>>>>>>mostly different versions of GPL and LGPL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I would be practical to clean up among the licenses and maybe even
> >>>>>>>use
> >>>>>>>the same license for all components. At least, we should settle on
> >>>>>>>either GPL or LGPL v3 or any later version for all components. One
> >>>>>>>immediate benefit is that a common license would simplify packaging
> >>>>>>>for Debian/Ubuntu since that requires listing all licenses used and
> >>>>>>>that involves some work (even for DOLFIN alone!).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>One implication is the need for changing the DOLFIN license which is
> >>>>>>>now LGPL v2.1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>An important point to consider is the potential implication of the
> >>>>>>>GPL
> >>>>>>>license used in FFC and UFL, which might force GPL on DOLFIN.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I have added a blueprint:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fenics/+spec/license
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please comment here and on the blueprint whiteboard.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Are there any plans for a proprietary product built atop the FEniCS
> >>>>>>components? (Imagine a fancy GUI frontend or something.) Or posed in
> >>>>>>another way, how would the community feel if something like this was
> >>>>>>built on FEniCS, and sold by someone else (or one of their own) for
> >>>>>>profit? (And not have any of their cool extensions contributed back.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There are no concrete plans that I know of, but I have had many
> >>>>>questions about the choice of license and possibilities for making
> >>>>>proprietary products on top of FEniCS.
> >>>>
> >>>>I guess the question is how one feels about this, as therein lies the
> >>>>difference between LGPL and GPL. And since there are many votes for
> >>>>LGPL---and it will likely win this little vote---I will voice my support
> >>>>for GPL. As in, if in the future there exists some cool frontend or
> >>>>something for FEniCS, I would like such a tool (or its underlying
> >>>>enhancements) to be freely available for teaching students and such.
> >>>
> >>>The reason I lean towards LGPL is that we probably gets more users
> >>>
> >>
> >>What hasn't been discussed (or maybe I missed it) is the distinction
> >>between L/GPLv2 and L/GPLv3. Can anyone summarise the difference in a
> >>nutshell?
> >
> >GPL v3 offers the same basic freedoms as GPL v2. Furthermore, GPL v3
> >clarifies some language to prevent recent shady acts such as the
> >following from occurring in the future:
> >
> >   - "Tivoization." This is whena hardware system incorporating Free
> >Software uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running
> >modified versions of the software on that hardware.[1]
> >
> >   - Crippling DRM. Similar to the above, GPL v3 ensures that you have
> >the freedom to remove software restrictions crippling the use of programs.
> >
> >   - The MS-Novell patent protection deal. GPL v3 provides for explicit
> >patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and
> >redistributors. As in, someone can't distribute patent-encumbered
> >software, then turn around and tell you that you're violating their rights.
> >
> >Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler
> >termination, support for p2p distribution, and compatibility with the
> >Apache license.[2]
> >
> >LGPL v3 inherits the above from GPL v3. In fact, LGPL v3 is actually GPL
> >v3 plus an addendum that allows redistribution of linking programs
> >without providing the source. (This is unlike LGPL v2.1 which is a
> >complete license on its own.)
>
> GPL 3 also benefits from having been written by expert lawyers so it
> actually holds together much better as a document. GPL2.1 is
> actually really badly drafted and has some utter legal nonsense in
> it.
>
> The downside of GPL3 is that it's incompatible with GPL2.1 and there
> is a fair bit of GPL software out there which doesn't have the "any
> later versions" clause attached.

That's why it is good to make a change now to "L/GPL v3 or any later
version" since we will then be free to change to v4 or whatever comes
next without needing to ask all developers.

It looks like most of us prefer LPGL so my suggestion is that we try
moving everything over to "LGPL v3 or any later version".

Possible problems:

 - Everyone might not agree with the move, for example Martin might
   prefer GPL for UFL.

   Martin: What do you think?

 - Licensing terms for dependencies, for example CGAL

   Can someone look into this?

--
Anders


> David
>
> >
> >Harish
> >
> >[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
> >[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> >Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> >More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

--
Anders