fenics team mailing list archive

[Kristian Ølgaard <k.b.oelgaard@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 5 April 2011 21:11, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

Since we moved to Launchpad, there's not really much to do w.r.t. maintenance.
If a project uses FEniCS software in some way, I wouldn't object to
someone claiming it to be part of FEniCS Apps.

Kristian

> --
> Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> Post to     : fenics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>