Subject: [Fenics] License

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 15:43:36 +0200

eA bunch of different licenses are used for various FEniCS components,
mostly different versions of GPL and LGPL.

I would be practical to clean up among the licenses and maybe even use
the same license for all components. At least, we should settle on
either GPL or LGPL v3 or any later version for all components. One
immediate benefit is that a common license would simplify packaging
for Debian/Ubuntu since that requires listing all licenses used and
that involves some work (even for DOLFIN alone!).

One implication is the need for changing the DOLFIN license which is
now LGPL v2.1.

An important point to consider is the potential implication of the GPL
license used in FFC and UFL, which might force GPL on DOLFIN.

I have added a blueprint:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fenics/+spec/license

Please comment here and on the blueprint whiteboard.

--
Anders

---

From: Kristian Ølgaard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:35:11 +0200

> that involves some work (even for DOLFIN alone!).

It's not  a big deal to me, but I think having just one license for
FEniCS would be great.
The main reason being that I don't have to think too hard when
copy/pasting the author/license info to files :)
That being said, a quick google convinced me to vote for LGPL if we
have to pick one.

Kristian

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

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:59:03 -0700

> That being said, a quick google convinced me to vote for LGPL if we

+1

Johan

---

From: Joe Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 22:21:37 -0400

LGPL gets my vote, over the GPL, assuming those are the choices. And
assuming I get a vote! It really depends on what you want to achieve.
Maximum adoption favors a flexible license, such as a BSD/Python-license.
But the LGPL strikes a balance you may prefer.

Joe.

On Sep 6, 2010 2:35 PM, "Kristian Ølgaard" <[email-masked]> wrote:

On 6 September 2010 15:43, Anders Logg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> eA bunch of different licenses are ...

Kristian

> An impo...

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:26:03 +0530

> Please comment here and on the blueprint whiteboard.

Are there any plans for a proprietary product built atop the FEniCS
components? (Imagine a fancy GUI frontend or something.) Or posed in
another way, how would the community feel if something like this was
built on FEniCS, and sold by someone else (or one of their own) for
profit? (And not have any of their cool extensions contributed back.)

Harish

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:28:36 +0200

+1

Kent

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:57:09 +0200

> profit? (And not have any of their cool extensions contributed back.)

There are no concrete plans that I know of, but I have had many
questions about the choice of license and possibilities for making
proprietary products on top of FEniCS.

GPL tends to be my default choice of license, but there are advantages
to LPGL, one of them being that it can be converted to GPL at will (by
anyone). ;-)

--
Anders

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:42:02 +0530

> proprietary products on top of FEniCS.

I guess the question is how one feels about this, as therein lies the
difference between LGPL and GPL. And since there are many votes for
LGPL---and it will likely win this little vote---I will voice my support
for GPL. As in, if in the future there exists some cool frontend or
something for FEniCS, I would like such a tool (or its underlying
enhancements) to be freely available for teaching students and such.

> to LPGL, one of them being that it can be converted to GPL at will (by

But the code just before this change can (and will) be forked by someone
looking to make a buck, and bundle their proprietary app on top.

Harish

---

From: Andy Ray Terrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 08:26:51 -0500

One license would make life easier.  Without knowing anything about
the plans of FEniCS's future, my preference is BSD then LGPL.

-- Andy

---

From: Johan Hake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:07:14 -0700

> enhancements) to be freely available for teaching students and such.

The reason I lean towards LGPL is that we probably gets more users

Johan

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:52:53 +0100

> The reason I lean towards LGPL is that we probably gets more users

What hasn't been discussed (or maybe I missed it) is the distinction 
between L/GPLv2 and L/GPLv3. Can anyone summarise the difference in a 
nutshell?

Garth

---

From: Harish Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:25:15 +0530

> between L/GPLv2 and L/GPLv3. Can anyone summarise the difference in a

GPL v3 offers the same basic freedoms as GPL v2. Furthermore, GPL v3
clarifies some language to prevent recent shady acts such as the
following from occurring in the future:

  - "Tivoization." This is whena hardware system incorporating Free
Software uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running
modified versions of the software on that hardware.[1]

  - Crippling DRM. Similar to the above, GPL v3 ensures that you have
the freedom to remove software restrictions crippling the use of programs.

  - The MS-Novell patent protection deal. GPL v3 provides for explicit
patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and
redistributors. As in, someone can't distribute patent-encumbered
software, then turn around and tell you that you're violating their rights.

Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler
termination, support for p2p distribution, and compatibility with the
Apache license.[2]

LGPL v3 inherits the above from GPL v3. In fact, LGPL v3 is actually GPL
v3 plus an addendum that allows redistribution of linking programs
without providing the source. (This is unlike LGPL v2.1 which is a
complete license on its own.)

Harish

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

---

From: David Ham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:16:51 +0100

> complete license on its own.)

GPL 3 also benefits from having been written by expert lawyers so it 
actually holds together much better as a document. GPL2.1 is actually 
really badly drafted and has some utter legal nonsense in it.

The downside of GPL3 is that it's incompatible with GPL2.1 and there is 
a fair bit of GPL software out there which doesn't have the "any later 
versions" clause attached.

David

-- 
Dr David Ham
Applied Modelling and Computation Group,
Department of Earth Science and Engineering,
Imperial College London,

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/david.ham

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:38:03 +0200

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:16:51AM +0100, David Ham wrote:
> actually holds together much better as a document. GPL2.1 is
> actually really badly drafted and has some utter legal nonsense in
> it.
>
> The downside of GPL3 is that it's incompatible with GPL2.1 and there
> is a fair bit of GPL software out there which doesn't have the "any
> later versions" clause attached.

That's why it is good to make a change now to "L/GPL v3 or any later
version" since we will then be free to change to v4 or whatever comes
next without needing to ask all developers.

It looks like most of us prefer LPGL so my suggestion is that we try
moving everything over to "LGPL v3 or any later version".

Possible problems:

 - Everyone might not agree with the move, for example Martin might
   prefer GPL for UFL.

   Martin: What do you think?

 - Licensing terms for dependencies, for example CGAL

   Can someone look into this?

--
Anders

--
Anders

---

From: Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:49:19 +0200

>> >>>>enhancements) to be freely available for teaching students and such.

AFAIK, (L)GPL doesn't make derived software free as in beer?
What happens if someone sells derived software, including source
code to compy with GPL?

>   Martin: What do you think?

I think "LGPL v3 or any later version" sounds good.
Note that Simula holds shared copyright of my work,
and they probably want LGPL instead of GPL,
to keep the commercialization option more open.
I believe I gave Ola Skavhaug my permission to
change UFL from GPL to LGPL after I left.

Martin

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:02:36 +0200

> What happens if someone sells derived software, including source

Neither GPL nor LGPL disallow charging money for distributing copies,
but you must also give access to source code so anyone else can choose
to distribute for free.

The difference between the two is that GPL will force GPL on anything
that touches the code in any way (like derived versions or even
linking to it), while LGPL will only force LGPL on derived code, not
on software linking to it.

Having LGPL on DOLFIN means anyone building proprietary software on
top of DOLFIN will need to distribute their changes to DOLFIN under
the LGPL, but not separate entities of code that link to DOLFIN.

> change UFL from GPL to LGPL after I left.

Great. I'll ask Simula but I don't expect any problems.

--
Anders

---

From: David Ham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:01:29 +0100

Looking forward, can I make a suggestion on copyright procedures.

The Fluidity project is also LGPL (we're currently 2.1 but that's 
irrelevant). The way we deal with contributor copyright is by getting 
contributors and their institutions to write letters explicitly agreeing 
to LGPL licensing. The letters are on file at Imperial and recorded on 
our website. In this way we have a nice clean audit trail of copyright 
consent. This mostly protects us against someone's institution being 
mercenary in the future.

I think this model would translate straight to FEniCS just by changing 
the software name and the LGPL version number.

The copyright procedures including sample letters are at:
http://amcg-www.ese.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=Local:Copyright_Clearance_Procedures

The list of copyright holders and scanned letters from institutions (we 
don't scan all the individual letters) is at:

http://amcg-www.ese.ic.ac.uk/index.php?title=Local:Copyright_holders

Hope this is of some use.

Regards,

David

On 10/09/10 19:02, Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Anders Logg<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:22:48 +0100

> Hope this is of some use.

This is interesting. We've made one license change already for DOLFIN 
(GPL -> LGPL), so I wonder if we could find some wording that deals with 
individual/institutions that go 'missing', i.e. we can't find them to 
agree a license change. Maybe 'LPGL v3 or later' is enough, but it's 
always seemed odd to me to agree to a future license that doesn't yet exist.

Garth

>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be practical to clean up among the licenses and
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe even
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> An important point to consider is the potential implication
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> GPL

---

From: David Ham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:46:57 +0100

> always seemed odd to me to agree to a future license that doesn't yet exist.

This is a known huge problem in copyright law generally. It's called the 
"orphan works" problem: you can't identify or contact the copyright 
holder so you can't get or change a licence. I'm not sure there is an 
easy answer on this one. Putting wording into a letter which implies 
that you might change the license conditions without the contributors 
consent (for example if you can't contact them) is likely to cause 
institutional copyright offices to object violently. Sometimes we have 
already had tricky negotiations with copyright officers who didn't "get" 
the open source model.

The "any later versions" clause is the way that most projects handle 
this. From the contributing institutions perspective, it at least has 
the advantage that any licence changes come from a third party rather 
than someone with a direct interest in the outcome.

David