Closed karalekas closed 3 years ago
I don't think I have the authority to decide this on my own. Furthermore, we're not planning on open-sourcing this just yet. This doesn't stop us from advancing with the CI implementation, right?
No it's definitely not blocking. This issue and #14 as well do not need to be completed now, I just opened them because they came to mind.
Also, even if you don't plan on open-sourcing any time soon, it might be worth making a licensing decision before sharing the repository with lots of people even privately (e.g. potential customers during private beta testing). Do you agree @nathanshammah?
Thanks @karalekas, I agree. Some specific information on licenses is present on github and a more general overview is found here.
Implications of a license vary broadly, as GNU GPL v. 3.0 is a copyleft one, while Apache 2.0 is good for commercial pipelines, while BSD 3.0 is very permissive, but allows third-party commercial use and close-sourcing.
Note that BSD v. 3.0 is used by a good deal of projects in the Python scientific stack (numpy, scipy, qutip) but Pulser
's development is specific for Pasqal systems and their commercial use and may align well with Apache 2.0.
You may also consider adding a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) or DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin), through bots/plugins within Github. CLAs are a bit clunky and are not deemed optimal if a primary goal is to involve a wider community contribution.
Before open-sourcing, you'll need to pick what type of license you want to use (e.g.
Apache-2.0
). After that, do the following:setup
function insetup.py
to tell it what license you chose.include LICENSE
toMANIFEST.in
.