xBOUT
xBOUT copied to clipboard
boutproject
License should be the same as BOUT-dev?
Presumably we should change the licence on this repo (from Apache) to the same GNU one that BOUT-dev has?
BOUT++ is LGPL, I think for historical reasons... I think the preference for new code would be GPLv3 (see HERMES, SD1D, STORM), unless we want to include any code that's not GPLv3-compatible.
There is some discussion of the compatibility of LGPL and Apache licenses here: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5664/linking-from-lgpl-2-1-software-to-apache-2-0-library
I don't think it's necessary to change the license; the xBOUT library reads the data from BOUT++, so is not really part of the same code.
Personally I'd be quite happy with LGPL, but it might be good if we kept PlasmaPy in mind. That library is under 3-clause BSD. Sorry to add another possibility, but it seems like Apache is compatible with BSD (https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/40561/is-bsd-license-compatible-with-apache).
On balance I think sticking with Apache is probably best, followed by maybe BSD, followed by LGPL. Of course I am not a lawyer...
It's true that most physics models have been put under GPL licenses, but these are more like finished codes which should be forced to be open (I think). There is an argument that library code like this should have a more permissive license to enable wider use.
BOUT++ LGPL so that if you dynamically link against it your code doesn't have to also be LGPL, e.g. as an optional plug-in.
I'd be happy with LGPL for xBOUT, but sticking with Apache is also acceptable.
Sorry, should correct that. It doesn't need to be (L)GPL, but it needs to be compatible with GPL, if we want to provide a close coupling between boutcore and xbout, because in that case the GPL license from fftw will apply to BOUT++, making the compiled BOUT++ GPL, and that requires xbout to be GPL as well.
@bendudson suggested sticking with Apache, but if David is right and the compiled version of BOUT++ is under the GPL we would have to change to a GPL compatible license. Is this the case? Any thoughts @ZedThree @johnomotani @TomNicholas ?