License change

[SanPen]

Proposal

This issue proposes the re-licensing of GridCal to a more permissive license, while improving the legal coverage.

Current license: GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

• Type: Weak Copyleft
• Key Features: Allows the software to be used in proprietary applications as long as modifications to the LGPL-covered code itself are released under LGPL. Focuses on libraries or components.

Benefits:

• Copyleft with Flexibility: Ensures that modifications to the LGPL-covered parts of GridCal are open-source, while allowing it to be used in proprietary software. Encourages contributions back to the LGPL-licensed components.

• Integration: Suitable if GridCal is intended to be used as a library or component within larger software systems, including proprietary ones.

Drawbacks:

• Complex Compliance: Requires that any modifications to the LGPL-covered code be open-source, which can add complexity to project management.

• No Patent Protection: Lacks explicit patent protection, which might expose users to patent claims related to the LGPL code.

Best For:

Projects where you want to ensure that any modifications to GridCal itself are open-source while allowing it to be used in proprietary applications. Ideal if GridCal is used as a library or component rather than as a standalone application.

Proposed license: Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL 2.0)

• Type: Weak Copyleft
• Key Features: Requires modifications to MPL-covered code to be open-source. Allows MPL-licensed code to be combined with proprietary code in the same project.

Benefits

• File-Level Copyleft: Only modifications to MPL-licensed files need to be open-source. This makes it easier to integrate MPL-licensed code with proprietary code without requiring the entire project to be open-source.

• Flexibility: Allows MPL code to be used in proprietary applications, which can increase adoption and use in commercial environments.

• Clear Terms: MPL 2.0 is designed to be straightforward and business-friendly, making it easier to comply with compared to some other licenses.

Drawbacks

• File-Level Restrictions: Modifications to MPL-covered files must be open-source, which can add complexity in mixed-license environments where only some files are MPL-licensed.

• No Patent Protection: Does not include explicit patent protection, which might expose users to patent claims related to the MPL code.

Best For

Projects where you want to ensure that modifications to the MPL-covered files are open-source while allowing integration with proprietary code in the same project. Suitable if GridCal is part of a larger proprietary system or application.

What other projects use:

Software	License
PSAT (Power System Analysis Toolbox)	GNU General Public License (GPL)
GridLAB-D	Custom permissive license
OpenIPSL (Open Integrated Power System Library)	BSD-3-Clause license
MATPOWER	BSD-3-Clause license
PyPSA (Python for Power System Analysis)	MIT license
pandapower	Custom permissive license
Powsybl	MPL-2.0 license
Power-grid-model	MPL-2.0 license

Required signers

Please respond to this issue with a comment stating if you agree that your contributions that are licensed under the LGPL be re-licensed to MPL.

• ✅ @SanPen
• ✅ @JosepFanals
• ✅ @Carlos-Alegre
• ✅ @miek770
• ✅ @benceszirbik
• ✅ @QuimMoya
• ✅ @Bengt
• @ManuelNvro
• ✅ @JanaSoler
• @ramferan
• ✅ @jozsefgorcs-navitasoft
• ✅ @jag0nzalez
• ✅ @peterkulik-navitasoft
• ✅ @cristinafray
• @fernpos
• @cggaray
• ✅ @yasirroni
• ✅ @leeraiyan
• ✅ @poypoyan
• ✅ @rzyu45
• ✅ @jahanbani
• ✅ @ClaudiaMachadoCervera
• @adrisanchu
• ✅ @RanjeetHambire
• ✅ @eyllanesc
• ✅ @bsanjuan

[SanPen]

My personal comment;

In choosing MPL, more people from industry could be brought into the project since that provides a more comfortable setting than the LGPL, while having a similar protection. Derivative works must retain the MPL license too and there is no restriction in the way the code it is included in other works since the MPL is a weak Copyleft license.

Other licenses that are not copyleft such as MIT, Apache or BSD leave the possibility that some parties make derivatives of GridCal and make it closed source, which in my view would be a terrible thing.

[poypoyan]

No problem for me. Thanks!

[JosepFanals]

Fine for me as well

[miek770]

Likewise, no problem for me.

[QuimMoya]

No problem !!!

[Carlos-Alegre]

No problem for me!

[SanPen]

I agree to relicense to MPL 2.0

[rzyu45]

Agreed

[yasirroni]

I agree with the changes. It make GridCal allowed to be statically included on other project.

But, it is worth noting that there will be an edge case explained in SO that user will be able to add functionality while not share the functionality itself.

someone could take one of the main file of your project, add "import my_private_new_file", and modify your main method for example by adding "my_private_new_file.newAwesomeFeature.run()".

See here: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/400544/405045

[BegoSanjuan]

No problem for me. Thank you!

[ClaudiaMachadoCervera]

Hi Santiago,

No problem from my side.

Regards,

Claudia Machado Cervera

Power Systems Engineer

eRoots Analytics

Carrer del Torrent d'en Vidalet 55 L1

Barcelona, 08024

@. @.>

www.eroots.tech [image: Photo]

https://www.linkedin.com/company/eroots-analytics/ https://eroots.tech/

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:40 PM Santiago Peñate Vera < @.***> wrote:

My personal comment;

In choosing MPL, more people from industry could be brought into the project since that provided a more comfortable setting than LGPL, while having a similar protection. Derivative works must retain the MPL license too and there is no restriction of the way it is included in other works since the MPL is a weak Copyleft license.

Other licenses that are not copyleft such as MIT, Apache or BSD leave the possibility that some parties make derivatives of GridCal and make it closed source which in my view would be a terrible thing.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SanPen/GridCal/issues/300#issuecomment-2316021653, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BC5IQM5VEGEDV4OB6VOXC3DZTYKRBAVCNFSM6AAAAABNI2GX52VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMJWGAZDCNRVGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[jozsefgorcs-navitasoft]

It's okay for me!

[eyllanesc]

It's okay for me!

[peterkulik-navitasoft]

Certainly, I agree.

[RanjeetHambire]

Its OK For me Also!

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 10:47, peterkulik-navitasoft < @.***> wrote:

Certainly, I agree.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SanPen/GridCal/issues/300#issuecomment-2320082319, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWAWL4NRYTMBODVBQCYQTM3ZT756RAVCNFSM6AAAAABNI2GX52VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRQGA4DEMZRHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[benceszirbik]

Sure! It is OK for us! griddigit Team

[Bengt]

Yes, relicensing to a more permissive license is fine by me. Thanks for the initiative.

[jag0nzalez]

I agree!

[cristinafray]

I agree!

[jsolerIREC]

I agree to the license change!

JanaSoler

[jahanbani]

Agreed.

[leeraiyan]

Agreed!