OpenFOAM BSD or LGPL (again)
There was a thread on this subject from last February, but I'd like to bring it up again. This message is directed to the copyright holders for OpenFOAM.
I think it would benefit the whole community if OpenFOAM was available under the LPGL. I observe that:
For everyone's good, please make OpenFOAM more available under the LGPL or BSD license. # GPLv3 states, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." The Paraview licenses make further restrictions. This is the same reason GPL is incompatible with the original BSD license. Even if I'm mistaken, users who care about following licenses have to think this through, and may be confused or dissuaded. |
It would be appreciated if you stated who you were and what affiliations you have. What is the GPL preventing you from doing? Please be more specific.
How does the GPL prevent you from using paraview? It's a separate piece of software. Quote:
|
A software license primarily serves the interests of the copyright holders and not the users. The GPL license is intended to make people that choose to extend/add the software work in a way that gives the main project the option to include their contributions. A less restrictive license would give third parties the option of whether to contribute to the main project or not. Given the way the main project currently handles contributions from others and the way the software is managed what would you expect to happen if the software was freed/opened up with a less restrictive license? Is that going to better serve the current copyright holders interests?
|
mcglashan, I'm blocked from #2. As for paraview, I think they can't bundle OpenFOAM with their product due to the GPL. They had to write their own, just as everyone else has to, because of GPL. Does that help anyone?
andy, I don't know what goals the authors have. I hope that helping engineers get their job done is high on the list, and interop is key to that. What I would expect to see as a result of BSD is that various vendors adopt FOAM into their products. I imagine that most vendors wouldn't change the code, to more easily track the mainline. What do you expect would happen? Something awful? Unless someone is going to write a GPL solver and viewer good enough to win the market, the GPL is incompatible with tools people use. Why not relicense OpenFOAM so that everyone can use it? |
Quote:
Quote:
The license of OpenFOAM is irrelevant for most of the independent tools that communicate with OpenFOAM via files as pointed out by Laurence above. One can combine existing BSD code with OpenFOAM code if you wish to extend OpenFOAM. BSD licenses permit such usage. Problems only occur for those that wish to extend OpenFOAM but do not want/cannot apply a GPL or BSD license to their code. If people wish to withhold their contributions or are required to withhold their contributions by their employers then, given the open(ish) form of the OpenFOAM project, is it going to be in the OpenFOAM copyright holders best interests to permit or hinder a one-sided collaboration? Like you, my short term interests would be better served by a BSD license but I am not confusing my interests with the interests of those developing OpenFOAM full time or the longer term viability of the project. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Just for completeness and in case anyone missed it here is a link that should clarify the stance of OpenCFD:
http://www.openfoam.com/legal/open-source.php Key points being: OpenCFD will always release OpenFOAM as free, open source software under the GPL. No-one else has the right to use OpenFOAM other than under the terms of the GPL. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Mark,
I think he means the OpenFOAM reader for ParaView, and not OpenFOAM itself, since he points to Takuya's wiki page on his native reader. |
deepsterblue is correct, I'm only talking about I/O libraries. For that portion, I think that LPGL/BSD would allow others (commercial and non-compatible OSS) to interoperate without taking much if anything away from the OpenFOAM copyright holders.
olesen, I didn't verify with Kitware. Apparently they haven't complained about any bundling yet, but my interpretation of the licenses indicates a conflict. If nobody complains then there isn't a problem, but there always could be. |
Greetings to all!
David, from my point of view, you're giving a bad example as to why OpenFOAM's core should be LGPL or even BSD. To show you what I mean, allow me to (try to) explain this in a bullet point pseudo-presentation ;) Why should OpenFOAM's core be LGPL or even BSD? (An in favour of GPL point of view, as a specific response to the original poster of this thread)
So, to sum up:
Reasons for OpenFOAM to stick to GPL: (Yes, one reason is enough ;) but only enough if you read into it.) Homework: Questions? :cool: ---------------- Disclaimers:
Best regards, Bruno |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:40. |