fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 07:13:01PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 05/04/11 18:44, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 11:49:05AM +0200, Harish Narayanan wrote:
> >> On 4/5/11 8:39 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> We're making good progress with collecting the copyright forms and
> >>> should soon be able to make the switch to LPGL.
> >>>
> >>> A couple of points I'd like to make:
> >>>
> >>> 1. When someone submits patches, maintainers first need to ask
> >>> contributors to sign the two forms. Otherwise, we risk having to run
> >>> after people we don't know to sign the forms later.
> >>>
> >>> 2. FEniCS Apps should have the exact same license as the rest of the
> >>> code, simply because that enables copying of code from Apps to Core.
> >>> It is natural (and desirable) that some of the code developed as part
> >>> of an App moves into DOLFIN if it's found that code may be useful to
> >>> other projects.
> >>>
> >>> This means CBC.Solve needs to either use the LPGL, or, if Harish still
> >>> objects, be removed from FEniCS Apps or CBC.Twist removed from
> >>> CBC.Solve.
> >>
> >> I understand and mostly agree with what you are saying.
> >>
> >> The only strong opinion I have is about cbc.twist. Not to be difficult,
> >> but I genuinely feel its goals---being a test-bed to learn and educate
> >> others about mechanics---are best served if any further projects built
> >> upon it are developed in an open fashion. To enforce this, I would like
> >> it to remain GPL.
> >
> > I understand, but it's a complication if we can't copy code between
> > the projects.
> >
> > Other opinions?
> >
>
> I think that requiring LGPL for apps is a bit draconian. There will be
> apps that will never have code incorporated into projects, and there may
> be projects that are best served by simply being released into the
> public domain. If a developer would like to have their code added to a
> project at some point, it would be in their interests to make it LGPL.

What should then the requirements be on a FEniCS App? For it to mean
something to be a FEniCS App, I think there should be some
requirements, like being based on FEniCS Core, having the same
license, plus maybe a few other requirements.

We could also take a more relaxed approach and just have a page on
fenicsproject.org which links to all projects that are somehow based
on FEniCS and use an open-source license (not necessarily GPL or
LGPL). Then everyone is invited to create a FEniCS App without any
special requirements (other than being open-source).

Maybe that is the best solution if we can't agree on what the
requirements should be? Even more so if there are in fact no
requirements other than the licensing and being based on FEniCS.

--
Anders