fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:45:11PM +0100, Kent-Andre Mardal wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> What happens with code from the apps that could/should be migrated back to
> dolfin? Will that
> be simple?

Not unless the apps use LGPL. That's a good reason for having LGPL on
the Apps too.

Migration would still be possible if the authors of the code in the
App actively submit it to DOLFIN and they have agreed to LGPL for
their DOLFIN contributions (they are free to relicense the code
themselves). But in practice this would be difficult since the code in
the App might have been touched by others who then agreed to make
their changes under the GPL. One would then need to ask all those who
have touched the code in the App to agree to relicense under the LGPL.

--
Anders