Change license from LGPL to MIT #365
Conversation
landreman
requested review from
mbkumar,
florianwechsung,
rogeriojorge,
ejpaul,
smiet,
rahulgaur104,
zhucaoxiang,
jloizu,
akaptano,
abaillod,
phuslage,
andrewgiuliani,
tmqian and
AlexWiedman
|
This is fine with me. |
|
I approve |
|
I approve the change |
|
I am checking with EPFL before Chris Smiet and I approve (for us, it's OK, but I just want to make sure we do not create conflicts). I try to find out as quickly as possible.
Joaquim
…________________________________
From: Miguel Madeira ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 7:38:12 PM
To: hiddenSymmetries/simsopt
Cc: Joaquim Loizu; Mention
Subject: Re: [hiddenSymmetries/simsopt] Change license from LGPL to MIT (PR #365)
I approve the change
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#365 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHHIXHTVAQCX7SSHWHCGG7DYAFQQJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6GKDIXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZRGQZTKNBYGM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Hi again,
Since we at EPFL are very minor contributors, we do not want to oppose or stop the process for tool long, but I do have a question: it seems the Apache license is essentially as open as the MIT but ensures a reference to the origin of the code, which may be good, and about what has been changed, if I understood correctly. Why not Apache license instead of MIT?
Thanks,
Joaquim
…________________________________
From: Joaquim Loizu
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 8:33:40 PM
To: hiddenSymmetries/simsopt; hiddenSymmetries/simsopt
Cc: Mention
Subject: Re: [hiddenSymmetries/simsopt] Change license from LGPL to MIT (PR #365)
I am checking with EPFL before Chris Smiet and I approve (for us, it's OK, but I just want to make sure we do not create conflicts). I try to find out as quickly as possible.
Joaquim
________________________________
From: Miguel Madeira ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 7:38:12 PM
To: hiddenSymmetries/simsopt
Cc: Joaquim Loizu; Mention
Subject: Re: [hiddenSymmetries/simsopt] Change license from LGPL to MIT (PR #365)
I approve the change
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#365 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHHIXHTVAQCX7SSHWHCGG7DYAFQQJAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6GKDIXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZRGQZTKNBYGM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
@jloizu As I understand it, the MIT and Apache licenses are quite similar in practice, both being in the permissive rather than copyleft category. Apache has a rule that derivative works must state changes made from the original version, which seems like a minor chore/annoyance. It looks like MIT is significantly more popular than Apache. Unless other people here favor Apache over MIT, I’d suggest we stick with MIT since most of the contributors here have already approved it. |
|
FYI, I use the Apache license for most of my OSS projects, but I agree that the MIT license can be described as even "less annoying". Let's stick with MIT for SIMSOPT. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #365 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.46% 91.38% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 72 72
Lines 12825 12700 -125
==========================================
- Hits 11730 11606 -124
+ Misses 1095 1094 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
We're good at EPFL as well! Thanks for the patience! |
landreman
dismissed stale reviews from tmqian, smiet, jloizu, abaillod, ejpaul, zhucaoxiang, rogeriojorge, rahulgaur104, mbkumar, andrewgiuliani, florianwechsung, and akaptano
via
1abdaf4
|
this is okay with me |
|
Everyone who contributed code has now approved the change. Thank you to all of you for responding. |
Presently simsopt has the LGPL license. In the new world of private stellarator companies, this license is proving to be a complication. I’m most familiar with the perspective from Type One Energy, for which I do some consulting and where @mbkumar now works. Although scientists at the company are adding features to a private fork of simsopt, lawyers are advising them not to push these improvements to the public simsopt repo because the LGPL license could require open-sourcing of other proprietary code. The company is unsure about continuing to use simsopt generally due to this risk of the LGPL license affecting their IP. It would be better for everyone if the companies felt free to push improvements to the public repository so all users can benefit.
So, I propose we change the license to the MIT license. More information about the differences can be found here, here, and other sites. To change the license, my understanding is that we should get approval from everyone who has contributed code under the previous license: @mbkumar @florianwechsung @ejpaul @akaptano @rogeriojorge @abaillod @MigMadeira @mishapadidar @tmqian @kchammond @zhucaoxiang @phuslage @migueljmp @smiet @AlexWiedman @jons-pf @rahulgaur104 @andrewgiuliani @TacitusQ @jloizu @StanczakDominik @zhisong kindly approve the pull request or reply below to let us know if you approve of the change. If you have any concerns, let me know.