pypi release

[ludwiglierhammer]

Goal

make a cdm_reader_mapper release on pypi

Questions

• author list:

  • is the current list ok?
  • is anybody missing?

• is the curent MIT license ok?

• who could answer those questions?

• may help: @aanderss, @jtsiddons

Notes

• author list:
  • mdf_reader documentation: David Berry, Irene Perez Gonzalez and Beatriz Recinos
  • cdm_mapper documentation: David Berry, Irene Perez Gonzalez and Beatriz Recinos

[rcornes]

• Author list and Acknowledgements: looks good to me
• License: we tend to favour the CC-BY-4.0 licence for our code
• Github A/C: @rcornes

[ludwiglierhammer]

@rcornes: Thanks for the information :sunny: @aanderss: Is license CC-BY-4.0 also ok for us? If so, I would change the glamod-marine-processing license in the same way.

[ludwiglierhammer]

@rcornes, @aanderss: regarding the licensing issue:

I found an interesting discussion about Creative Commons Licenses and GitHub. As far as I understand it CC-BY-4.0 is for not open-source publication (no guarantee on my part). Perhaps the GNU GPL v3.0 license is the closest to CC-BY 4.0?

At the moment, GitHub does not offer CC-BY-4.0 license, but GNU GPL v3.0. Instead, here are the current provided licenses. Of course, we can simply add CC-BY-4.0 as our license but then it is not one of the "official" ones.

What is your opinion about this?

Edit: We can use two licenses (e.g.):

• MIT or GNU GPL v3.0 for the pypi release
• CC-BY-4.0 for the zenodo DOI (this is the default one)

I have no idea what two licenses exactly mean.

[aanderss]

@rcornes , @ludwiglierhammer I can confirm Ludwig's findings regarding the CC license. CC does not recommend to use Creative Commons licenses for software. See the FAQ here: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

I would prefer to choose either MIT or GPL for the code and the release on zenodo. CC appears to be appropriate for documentation etc..

@ludwiglierhammer: Does GPL v3.0 pass the license checker?

[ludwiglierhammer]

@rcornes, @aanderss Unfortunately, license scan failed with GNU GPL v3.0.

These packages contain code files that may require you to disclose your source code under a compatible license, 
unless they’re distributed and run as completely separate processes & packages.

[ludwiglierhammer]

If you do not want to use MIT license, is Apache License 2.0 an option. It is used by xclim and xarray.