fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:08:00PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> 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.

That's fine with me. Other opinions?

What do Andy and Kristian (FEniCS Apps maintainers) say?
Are you doing any maintenance or is it, in fact, free play?

--
Anders