search

ActivitySim / activitysim

An Open Platform for Activity-Based Travel Modeling
https://activitysim.github.io
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
189 stars 96 forks source link

Choose a license for ActivitySim #1

Closed jiffyclub closed 9 years ago

jiffyclub commented 10 years ago

We should choose a license for ActivitySim. Here are some common ones: http://opensource.org/licenses

UrbanSim is currently covered by the GNU Affero GPL: http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0

waddell commented 10 years ago

If we want to maximize the incentives to participate and flexibility, and be willing to incur some risk that a private company could take the code and create a commercial version, I would recommend a BSD license.

If we want to minimize the risk of a private company being able to benefit from this, at the cost of reduced flexibility and more impediments to participation, I would recommend GPL or AGPL.

I'm leaning towards the permissive flexibility of BSD. Maximize incentives to participate, and don't worry if anyone else benefits. Hopefully they will contribute.

DavidOry commented 10 years ago

I have little experience in these matters, but I am not concerned with the risk of a private company taking the work and trying to profit from it. We're a small community and, as Paul says, hopefully they will contribute. I'd trust y'all's recommendation.

e-lo commented 10 years ago

I agree with a more permissive license. On Jul 3, 2014 8:24 AM, "David Ory" notifications@github.com wrote:

I have little experience in these matters, but I am not concerned with the risk of a private company taking the work and trying to profit from it. We're a small community and, as Paul says, hopefully they will contribute. I'd trust y'all's recommendation.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/synthicity/activitysim/issues/1#issuecomment-47944201 .

guyrousseau commented 10 years ago

I'm all for it, in the spirit of enhanced permissive flexibility

danielsclint commented 9 years ago

Assuming its not too late to chime in on this thread, I would prefer the University of Illinois / NCSA license. It is based on the BSD license, but I think it more clearly lays out the copyright holder. It also makes it clear that a third-party cannot imply an endorsement from AMPORF.

Although, full disclaimer, I am an alum of this great institution.

If a final decision has already been applied, I will defer to that decision.

waddell commented 9 years ago

The BSD 3-clause license also does not have a third-party endorsement implication - that is the 3rd clause, in fact. We've already integrated this license into the UrbanSim code base, so it would be cleanest to be consistent with the new code for the ABM platform, if that's ok.

And you might imagine I like using the BSD license over MIT or University of Illinois... but that's neither here nor there...

Paul

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clint Daniels notifications@github.com wrote:

Assuming its not too late to chime in on this thread, I would prefer the University of Illinois / NCSA license http://otm.illinois.edu/uiuc_openSource. It is based on the BSD license, but I think it more clearly lays out the copyright holder. It also makes it clear that a third-party cannot imply an endorsement from AMPORF.

Although, full disclaimer, I am an alum of this great institution.

If a final decision has already been applied, I will defer to that decision.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/synthicity/activitysim/issues/1#issuecomment-50556783 .

danielsclint commented 9 years ago

Okay, I'm fine. Let's go with BSD 3 Clause.

Clint Daniels 619-699-6946

On Jul 29, 2014, at 7:42 PM, "Paul Waddell" notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

The BSD 3-clause license also does not have a third-party endorsement implication - that is the 3rd clause, in fact. We've already integrated this license into the UrbanSim code base, so it would be cleanest to be consistent with the new code for the ABM platform, if that's ok.

And you might imagine I like using the BSD license over MIT or University of Illinois... but that's neither here nor there...

Paul

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clint Daniels notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Assuming its not too late to chime in on this thread, I would prefer the University of Illinois / NCSA license http://otm.illinois.edu/uiuc_openSource. It is based on the BSD license, but I think it more clearly lays out the copyright holder. It also makes it clear that a third-party cannot imply an endorsement from AMPORF.

Although, full disclaimer, I am an alum of this great institution.

If a final decision has already been applied, I will defer to that decision.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/synthicity/activitysim/issues/1#issuecomment-50556783 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/synthicity/activitysim/issues/1#issuecomment-50567353.