fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:58:39AM +0300, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:11 PM, 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?
>
> My view was always to just have a loose management scheme with links
> to open source projects using FEniCS.  For one I think BSD should be
> an option.  We could certainly say what the preference is and tell
> people that FEniCS LGPL and it can't use code that comes from a GPL
> product.
>
> As far as I can tell, the argument over licensing and content in
> CBC.solve is local to that project.
>
> >
> > What do Andy and Kristian (FEniCS Apps maintainers) say?
> > Are you doing any maintenance or is it, in fact, free play?
>
> Maintenance is minimal especially since the wiki space went away.  Not
> sure what you mean by free play.
>
> I really think there is a lot of potential for developers to
> contribute code to FEniCS-Apps and could see more web-apps based on
> showing the different codes, giving users support, and furthering the
> exposure of FEniCS.  Right now it looks like a bunch of independent
> projects that have little to nothing to do with each other.  Not
> having funding for such things or noticeable interest from the
> community, I've basically backed off on promoting FEniCS-Apps.  I
> think having strict license policies will be just one more hurdle to
> realizing such potential.

ok. It looks to me like the best solution is to let FEniCS Apps just
be a web page on fenicsproject.org which links to the respective web
page of any project that claims to be a FEniCS App, the only
requirement being that it is open-source (using an OSI approved
license of choice).

I don't know whether we need the Launchpad FEniCS Apps page, but I'll
let you decide. Imposing the use of Launchpad is also another
restriction/hurdle to developers of FEniCS-based applications.

I'll remove the mentioning of FEniCS Apps from the copyright forms and
put up new versions, but there is no need to sign new forms for those
who have already signed.

--
Anders