Subject: [Fenics] More on the licensing

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:39:21 +0200

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.

--
Anders

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:49:05 +0200

> objects, be removed from FEniCS Apps or CBC.Twist removed from

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 think the easiest solution here is that I split cbc.twist from
cbc.solve. This allows the rest of cbc.solve to then be an LGPL FEniCS
App, and I have no other qualms about signing the license change forms.

Harish

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:44:10 +0200

> upon it are developed in an open fashion. To enforce this, I would like

I understand, but it's a complication if we can't copy code between
the projects.

Other opinions?

> App, and I have no other qualms about signing the license change forms.

So it would be an add-on to CBC.Solve? It would be a bit unfortunate
if we'd have to remove it from CBC.Solve. But perhaps it would be
fairly easy to implement a new hyperelasticity solver.

--
Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:13:01 +0100

> I understand, but it's a complication if we can't copy code between

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.

Garth

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

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:34:31 +0200

> 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).

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

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:08:00 +0100

> special requirements (other than being open-source).

This has always been my interpretation of a FEniCS App.

Garth

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:11:38 +0200

> 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

---

From: Kristian Ølgaard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:12:36 +0200

> 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

---

From: Andy Ray Terrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:58:39 +0300

> 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.

> 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.

-- Andy

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:35:13 +0200

> 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

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:00:29 +0200

> App, and I have no other qualms about signing the license change forms.

Just for the record, I think this turned out well. My only argument
for enforcing LGPL on CBC.Solve was a practical one (having the same
license accross all FEniCS projects). Now that we make FEniCS Apps
something separate, or more inclusive depending how you look at it
(anything can now be a FEniCS App), I think the GPL is the better
choice of license for CBC.Solve.

Both Harish and I are strong FSF/GPL supporters so this is really an
Emacs vs XEmacs, or even Emacs22 vs Emacs23 type argument. :-)

--
Anders

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:05:13 +0200

> Emacs vs XEmacs, or even Emacs22 vs Emacs23 type argument. :-)

:)

Harish