fenics team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/04/11 19:34, Anders Logg wrote:
> 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).
>


This has always been my interpretation of a FEniCS App.

Garth

> 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