licensing for modules

[goldingn]

This modules issue (which I'm hereby moving here) raises a good point:

The repo is currently entirely licensed as BSD 3 clause. As people contribute their own modules this might become inappropriate.

Should we have separate licences for each module with developers picking from a list? Or enforce a single licence for everything? Ancillary licence files would be unworkable I think.

Thoughts appreciated

[AugustT]

First and foremost I think we need to ensure modules are given 'open' licenses. As you say we could either enforce a license or let people choose there own.

My opinion is that we should enforce a license because a) this makes things easier for us, b) it ensures all modules are 'open', c) it is easier for the authors for whom licences are often a complex topic. If there are complaints from developers once a community is established we could canvas opinion and move to a different model but I think this is a sensible starting point.

If we go down this road then we simply need a statement on the website submission page that says something like

By submitting this module you are agreeing to publish it under the XXX licence (link to more information)

[AugustT]

I think we should keep the BSD 3 clause license. This just leaves it for @gef-work to add the line above to the module submission page

By submitting this module you are agreeing to publish it under the BSD 3 clause licence. For more information visit: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause