<div dir="ltr"><div>Actually, if your colleagues are just going to compile and run your code, GPL is fine: There is no restriction to publishing results derived from compiling and executing GPL code. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Now, if you are going to give your colleagues an executable produced from your code and the Dune toolbox, first consider:</div><div><br></div><div>a) if your code is in any way a modification of the code in any Dune module, you *must* provide a copy of your code to your colleagues, or if it is in published somewhere, tell them where they can download it. The licence you put on it must follow the GPL guidelines for free, i.e., any subsequent modification of the code must remain in the free realm.<br></div><div><br></div><div>b) if your code in no way is a modification of the code in any Dune module, you may use an open but non-free license such as BSD. The guys at GNU consider the BSD license as non-free, because it will allow your colleagues to modify your code and not share it back with you. Furthermore, the BSD license will allow them to do so and not even give you any credit. Windows uses a lot of BSD code and does not credit the University of California at Berkeley.</div><div><br></div><div>HTH<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El dom, 29 de nov. de 2020 a la(s) 03:42, Andreas Lauser (<a href="mailto:and@poware.org">and@poware.org</a>) escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Gregor,<br>
<br>
As the person responsible much of for said licensing discussion, let me try to <br>
clarify a few things:<br>
<br>
- Regardless of which license you choose, you are still the copyright holder <br>
of your own code, i.e. you may re-license your own code however you like. <br>
(e.g., you may grant your colleagues a different license than the rest of the <br>
world in a year's time)<br>
- If you ship a modified DUNE file with your code, and want to be on the save <br>
side until the Dune project defines what exactly the term "DUNE source file" <br>
means in their template exception, you should make your own code available <br>
under a license that is compatible with the GPL version 2. Besides using the <br>
GPLv2 directly, this means that permissive licenses like MIT and BSD <br>
unproblematic. Note though, that -- somewhat ironically -- it is problematic <br>
to only allow the GPL version 3 because it is incompatible with DUNE's GPLv2.<br>
- Even if you decide to use a license which is not compatible with the GPLv2, <br>
it is undoubtedly allowed to ship a patch for the DUNE file with your source <br>
code and apply it during the build process. Be aware, though, that in this <br>
case the the resulting binaries cannot be legally distributed and the GPLv2 <br>
will possibly apply to the patch itself.<br>
<br>
tl;dr: If you want to use a copyleft license, use the GPLv2 or GPLv2+; if your <br>
colleagues do not like copyleft, a permissive license like MIT, BSD or Apache <br>
is probably your best option.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Andreas<br>
<br>
On Friday, 27 November 2020 19:25:57 CET Gregor Corbin wrote:<br>
> Dear Dune Community,<br>
> <br>
> as part of my Ph.D. I wrote some code based on DUNE and DUNE PDELab,<br>
> which I now want make accessible for everyone. I sent everything (the<br>
> research code, auxiliary scripts, outputs) to the university library to<br>
> put it on one of their servers.<br>
> They asked me under which license I want to publish it. My first<br>
> instinct was to choose a relatively strict open source license, such as<br>
> GPL. But I have really no clue about the fine details and implications.<br>
> The person from the library told me that using the GPL could mean that<br>
> colleagues from my work group could not re-use my code for their<br>
> research/publications. This seems a bit far fetched for me, as there is<br>
> apparently also no problem for me to publish results obtained with code<br>
> based on the Dune libraries.<br>
> <br>
> So, are there any downsides of using the GPL?<br>
> <br>
> To complicate matters, I included a small patch (as a git diff) to<br>
> dune-geometry (The original dune modules are not a part of the published<br>
> package. I only have a script to clone them from their repositories).<br>
> Does this mean I have to use the GPL anyway? I am aware that there was a<br>
> discussion about licenses to modified dune code recently, but this is<br>
> still unclear to me.<br>
> <br>
> I would be grateful for any advice in this.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Gregor Corbin<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Dune mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Dune@lists.dune-project.org" target="_blank">Dune@lists.dune-project.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.dune-project.org/mailman/listinfo/dune" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.dune-project.org/mailman/listinfo/dune</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Writing non-trivial software that is correct (for any meaningful definition of<br>
correct) is beyond the current capabilities of the human species.<br>
-- Wesley Aptekar-Cassels_______________________________________________<br>
Dune mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dune@lists.dune-project.org" target="_blank">Dune@lists.dune-project.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.dune-project.org/mailman/listinfo/dune" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.dune-project.org/mailman/listinfo/dune</a></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div>Dr. Edscott Wilson Garcia<br></div>Reservoir Engineering<br></div>Mexican Petroleum Institute<br></div></div>