fenics team mailing list archive

[Harish Narayanan <harish.mlists@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/28/11 3:10 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28/01/11 14:06, Harish Narayanan wrote:
>> On 1/28/11 2:47 PM, Harish Narayanan wrote:
>>> On 1/28/11 1:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:03:15PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
>>>>> I've prepared drafts of the copyright consent forms:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/forms/
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look and let the list know if you have any comments.
>>>>> If we find that the documents look ok, we can start sending out
>>>>> requests for signed consent forms.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't heard any objections to the design of the consent forms so I
>>>> assume everyone's onboard. I will start sending out requests for forms
>>>> shortly.
>>>
>>> The documents seem reasonable, except that I have one concern over the
>>> (broad) scope. What if a contributor is OK with LGPL for some FEniCS
>>> components, but doesn't see the purpose (or is not happy with, for
>>> whatever reason) for other components.
>>>
>>> I understand the rationale behind LGPL for core components (DOFIN, FFC
>>> etc.) but not, for e.g., FEniCS Apps.
>>
>> I am going to further my query. Probably convoluted, but here it goes:
>>
>> What constitutes a FEniCS app? Is it any application written based on
>> components of the FEniCS project? Is it an application that gets listed
>> on the FEniCS web site? And if one is going to force the license of the
>> app, does that not defeat the purpose of LGPL'ing core FEniCS components[1]?
>>
> 
> My take is that an App gets to hang itself under the 'FEniCS App'
> banner, and a qualifying requirement for that is a GPL/LGPL license. If
> it's proprietary, it can't be a FEniCS App.

OK, that makes sense to me.

Harish