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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
