On 5 April 2011 21:11, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
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 > -- > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
