search

lnls-fac / trackcpp

Particle tracking code
GNU General Public License v3.0
3 stars 3 forks source link

Discuss choice of license #23

Open xresende opened 9 years ago

xresende commented 9 years ago

What license do we really want?! MIT vs GPL ? Other? We never discussed this issue.

fernandohds564 commented 9 years ago

@xresende, in my opinion the answer to this question does not depend on our opinion :grin:. This code is a property of the laboratory, isn't it? We need to know what LNLS recommends, don't we? Actually, I think the same is valid for all lnls-fac codes... I hope they choose MIT :sweat_smile: .

ghost commented 9 years ago

From http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/:

If I wanted to distribute an application which uses GSL, what license would I need to use? The GNU General Public License (GPL).

This means trackcpp has to be under GPL as well, and I believe this propagates to all other code which uses pyaccel, such as sirius and va. An alternative to the GPL is LAPACK (http://www.netlib.org/lapack/index.html).

A nice source of information on licensing is http://choosealicense.com/.

xresende commented 9 years ago

@fernandohds564, I checked. Here's what I understand:

In Brazil, since 1998, the employer does have the right to software developed by its employees hired specifically for this purpose. This new ( :joy:) law (http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9609.htm) changed the previous one from 73 in which the employee had half the rights.

But, as always in life, the discussion is not that black-and-white, apparently. Look at

http://www.migalhas.com.br/dePeso/16,MI26281,101048-Direito+dos+empregados+a+propriedade+industrial .

If I could I would wave any eventual software right and accept whatever license CNPEM/LNLS chooses for the Sirius software that I am helping to develop.

Since I love symmetry I have to end with this: I hope they choose GPL :sweat_smile: .

fernandohds564 commented 9 years ago

So, what do we do? Do we ask CNPEM/LNLS for recommendations? If so, to whom do we ask?

xresende commented 9 years ago

@afonsoharuo, I understand. But:

To use MIT's licence we would have to abandon GSL. Other than what CNPEM/LNLS has to say on the matter, why MIT's would be preferable over GPL?

Ximenes.

xresende commented 9 years ago

@afonsoharuo, it is naturally no pressing matter but we could discuss this issue with people over coffee breaks. Zé is the person who comes to mind, for example.

fernandohds564 commented 9 years ago

The point is: what if CNPEM/LNLS decides we cannot use either GPL or MIT?

fernandohds564 commented 9 years ago

Yes. Or, maybe, Cleonice...

xresende commented 9 years ago

We may then have to give up GitHub since we may not distribute our software, dependig on the license. (I suppose using GitHub means distributing...)