Need license file

[rplzzz]

Sometime before we open the repository to the public we need to add a file with the text of the license we are releasing under to the top-level directory.

[rplzzz]

Have we decided what license we are using yet? GCAM uses the ECL 2.0, so that's a possibility, but we might also consider one that is a little better known. Does anybody know why the ECL, specifically was chosen?

If we're not committed to using ECL, GH has a good guide to the differences between licenses: http://choosealicense.com/

[bpbond]

Useful link--thanks. This decision is probably above our pay grade; I'd just say GPL and be done with it, but we'll definitely need to clear it with the powers that be.

[bpbond]

Make sure license has a "fair use" section, or include as a separate doc.

[bpbond]

I need to check what PNNL lawyers said when I talked to them- did they specify using a specific license? I don't think so.

[bpbond]

Check what's required by Boost license too!

[bpbond]

Bumping this up: @cahartin @rplzzz we need to have something in place before resubmission!

[rplzzz]

We need to get some feedback from management on this one. I think we are committed to GPL due to the linkage with the GSL, but I'm not totally sure. In any case, it would make our lives a lot easier if we could get management just to sign off on GPL and be done with it.

[rplzzz]

Done in ee6436d.

[rgieseke]

If one of the reasons for choosing the GPL is the linkage with GSL, shouldn't Hector then be under GPL3 or "GPL2 or later", since GSL is licensed under GPL version 3?

See the matrix at the GPL FAQ, row 9:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

[rplzzz]

I'm not sure, so we'll have to look into it. However, since the differences between GPL2 and GPL3 are irrelevant for Hector (they mostly concern the "tivoization" issue), it's a low priority. I chose the GPL2 because its language seems simpler and a little easier for non-lawyers to understand, which is a big plus for a code like this.