On 17 February 2011 20:57, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:18:26AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > > > > On 17/02/11 11:16, Harish Narayanan wrote: > > > On 2/17/11 12:11 PM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 17/02/11 11:08, Harish Narayanan wrote: > > >>> On 2/17/11 11:56 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 17/02/11 10:27, Harish Narayanan wrote: > > >>>>> Dear FEniCS enthusiasts, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am going to reiterate a concern that I tried to bring up earlier > > >>>>> regarding the copyright consent forms. Please chime in with your > views. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I understand the rationale behind using LGPL for core FEniCS > components > > >>>>> (e.g. DOLFIN and FFC). It makes sense to me that these projects > could > > >>>>> form a part of future (potentially proprietary) applications. The > > >>>>> developers of such applications clearly have to bring in a lot of > > >>>>> domain-specific knowledge. I can see why they might want to keep > such > > >>>>> knowledge proprietary, and I can see how moving to LGPL brings them > into > > >>>>> the community at least as users of FEniCS. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> But the same logic doesn't hold (in my mind) for FEniCS Apps. Some > of > > >>>>> these function reasonably well and are already capable of solving > select > > >>>>> domain-specific problems. Aren't they, in a sense, closer to > complete, > > >>>>> immediately useful applications? Given this, does it make sense > that > > >>>>> they too should be released under LGPL? What is then to prevent > someone > > >>>>> from, say, slapping a GUI on a well-functioning solver and selling > it as > > >>>>> a tool? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm not sure what you're advocating. That FEniCS Apps should be GPL? > > >>> > > >>> Yes, or at least be left to the developer's choice. I am not keen on > > >>> past contributions to FEniCS Apps under GPL now suddenly being > > >>> transferred to LGPL. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I'm perfectly happy with FEniCS Apps developers choosing for > themselves > > >> between GPL and LGPL. I thought that this was the present situation? > > > > > > That is not what the text of the copyright consent form suggests. I > > > would like if what you said was made more explicit. > > > > > > Link for easy access: > > > http://www.fenicsproject.org/pub/copyright/forms/letter-author.pdf > > > > > > > OK. > > > > Since we don't distribute FEniCS Apps, I don't see why they've been > > included on the consent form. > > FEniCS Apps is still a part of FEniCS so it's reasonable to include it > on the form. And it would have been good to bring this up before we > started sending out and collecting the forms. > > There are a number of possibilities: > > 1. Allow FEniCS Apps to select either GPL or LGPL. In that case we can > construct an optional form for Harish. > > 2. Require that FEniCS Apps use LGPL as the rest of FEniCS. In that > case developers that object to the LGPL can take their projects > elsewhere (or rather keep them on Launchpad). The only difference > would be that they are not promoted as a FEniCS App from the FEniCS > web page. > > 3. Discontinue FEniCS Apps and don't require anything for the projects > currently part of FEniCS Apps. We could still have a page on > fenicsproject.org which linked to projects based on FEniCS. Since we > don't provide any infrastructure for the Apps (Launchpad does), the > difference would be small. > > -- > Anders > > What happens with code from the apps that could/should be migrated back to dolfin? Will that be simple?
Kent
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
