fenics team mailing list archive

[Kent-Andre Mardal <kent-and@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 17 February 2011 20:57, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:18:26AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17/02/11 11:16, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> > > On 2/17/11 12:11 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 17/02/11 11:08, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> > >>> On 2/17/11 11:56 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 17/02/11 10:27, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> > >>>>> Dear FEniCS enthusiasts,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am going to reiterate a concern that I tried to bring up earlier
> > >>>>> regarding the copyright consent forms. Please chime in with your
> views.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I understand the rationale behind using LGPL for core FEniCS
> components
> > >>>>> (e.g. DOLFIN and FFC). It makes sense to me that these projects
> could
> > >>>>> form a part of future (potentially proprietary) applications. The
> > >>>>> developers of such applications clearly have to bring in a lot of
> > >>>>> domain-specific knowledge. I can see why they might want to keep
> such
> > >>>>> knowledge proprietary, and I can see how moving to LGPL brings them
> into
> > >>>>> the community at least as users of FEniCS.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But the same logic doesn't hold (in my mind) for FEniCS Apps. Some
> of
> > >>>>> these function reasonably well and are already capable of solving
> select
> > >>>>> domain-specific problems. Aren't they, in a sense, closer to
> complete,
> > >>>>> immediately useful applications? Given this, does it make sense
> that
> > >>>>> they too should be released under LGPL? What is then to prevent
> someone
> > >>>>> from, say, slapping a GUI on a well-functioning solver and selling
> it as
> > >>>>> a tool?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm not sure what you're advocating. That FEniCS Apps should be GPL?
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, or at least be left to the developer's choice. I am not keen on
> > >>> past contributions to FEniCS Apps under GPL now suddenly being
> > >>> transferred to LGPL.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I'm perfectly happy with FEniCS Apps developers choosing for
> themselves
> > >> between GPL and LGPL. I thought that this was the present situation?
> > >
> > > That is not what the text of the copyright consent form suggests. I
> > > would like if what you said was made more explicit.
> > >
> > > Link for easy access:
> > > http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/forms/letter-author.pdf
> > >
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Since we don't distribute FEniCS Apps, I don't see why they've been
> > included on the consent form.
>
> FEniCS Apps is still a part of FEniCS so it's reasonable to include it
> on the form. And it would have been good to bring this up before we
> started sending out and collecting the forms.
>
> There are a number of possibilities:
>
> 1. Allow FEniCS Apps to select either GPL or LGPL. In that case we can
> construct an optional form for Harish.
>
> 2. Require that FEniCS Apps use LGPL as the rest of FEniCS. In that
> case developers that object to the LGPL can take their projects
> elsewhere (or rather keep them on Launchpad). The only difference
> would be that they are not promoted as a FEniCS App from the FEniCS
> web page.
>
> 3. Discontinue FEniCS Apps and don't require anything for the projects
> currently part of FEniCS Apps. We could still have a page on
> fenicsproject.org which linked to projects based on FEniCS. Since we
> don't provide any infrastructure for the Apps (Launchpad does), the
> difference would be small.
>
> --
> Anders
>
>
What happens with code from the apps that could/should be migrated back to
dolfin? Will that
be simple?

Kent