Draft of licensing notes

[pgrinaway]

Draft that addresses #5. Ready to review.

[jchodera]

We should definitely include a link to the Open Source Initiative, since this is the widely-recognized definitive body that designates "open source" licenses.

[pgrinaway]

We should definitely include a link to the Open Source Initiative, since this is the widely-recognized definitive body that designates "open source" licenses.

Ok!

[jchodera]

This article ("A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer") may also be useful to link to

[jchodera]

This looks great!

Can we also make a recommendation? I'd suggest the most permissive license (MIT) might be a good default recommendation since it allows for your software to have the "fullest life", by being useful for both academic and commercial purposes with minimal risk.

I might also add a paragraph about software relicensing: What happens if you need to change licenses, or also distribute the software under a second (different) license? This can cause headaches since all authors have to agree, and is a strong argument for why starting with a permissive license is often optimal.

[pgrinaway]

Can we also make a recommendation?

Ok, will add. EDIT: Was concerned about annoying people here, but I don't think that's such a concern if we word it as you suggest.

I might also add a paragraph about software relicensing:

I did have some of that but I think it could be split off to be on its own. Will do now.

[pgrinaway]

Ok, I've added both. I noted that the legal issues involved in maintaining a copyleft license while simultaneously facilitating commercial collaboration can become burdensome, so we recommend a permissive license such as MIT.

[jchodera]

Awesome! Thanks so much!

Hopefully the license issues are places where molssi.org can provide clarity.