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