Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Licence change #3

Open
rs028 opened this issue Dec 22, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Licence change #3

rs028 opened this issue Dec 22, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@rs028
Copy link
Contributor

rs028 commented Dec 22, 2018

We should consider whether EUPL is the most appropriate licence for Mistra.

As I understand it, the EUPL was developed by the EU to cover the work of the commission and potentially of other EU funded projects. While nothing prevents its adoption by other projects, it seems an odd choice for Mistra for the following reasons:

  1. Mistra is scientific software and, by definition, science is international. Therefore it is irrelevant whether the licence is fully compatible with EU law or translated into all the EU languages.

  2. Most of the development of Mistra was not EU funded. Only a fraction of the work by @JosueBock that created the current version was funded by the EU, before they pulled the plug. The rest was done on a voluntary basis.

  3. Most of the users and developers - past and present - of Mistra are, or soon will be, outside the EU. This is not particularly important per se, it just means an EU centered licence is not relevant.

I think Mistra should be under a licence with global applicability and widely known/understood all over the world, especially within the scientific community. Personally, I think that it would be more appropriate to use either the GPL licence or, if we want to be more permissive, the MIT or BSD licence (see this website https://tldrlegal.com/ for more info).

There has never really been a discussion about this. I think we need to discuss it now and decide before the paper is ready to be published. Any thoughts/opinions @pb866, @JosueBock, @cereevesUEA?

@rs028
Copy link
Contributor Author

rs028 commented Feb 14, 2019

Note: conversion to GPL2 is allowed by EUPL. This is also the licence of KPP.

@JosueBock
Copy link
Contributor

There has never really been a discussion about this.

There has been a thorough discussion about this, with Andreas Bott, Jan Kaiser, Claire Reeves, and two people from UEA who are specialists about licences.

Unless there is a precise situation where the EUPL licence would be an issue, I see no reason to discuss this point at the moment.

@rs028
Copy link
Contributor Author

rs028 commented Apr 2, 2019

I think the discussion should have involved some of the developers, besides you and Andreas.
Anyways, can you share the reason(s) behind this choice?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants