[yt-dev] Proposed: Moving yt from GPLv3 to BSD-like license

Thu Jul 11 16:22:31 PDT 2013

Ok, good to know. This license stuff is always so strange...

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <goldbaum at ucolick.org>wrote:

> Yup, it seems that many linux distributions list IPython's license as BSD
> 3-clause.
>
> More info here:
> http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
> http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> http://ipython.org/ipython-doc/dev/about/license_and_copyright.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause_license_.28.22Revised_BSD_License.22.2C_.22New_BSD_License.22.2C_or_.22Modified_BSD_License.22.29
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Casey W. Stark <caseywstark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yea! I didn't know this was an issue for yt, but I recently heard of some
>> real headaches for a GPL science package. It would be a shame for licensing
>> to impede any yt work.
>>
>> Just curious, is the ipython license the same as BSD 3 clause?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I apologize for the long email, but because this is a relatively
>>> important subject I need to address a few items in detail.
>>>
>>> This is meant as a discussion point.  I would like to ensure
>>> investment in a change like this from the yt community, both
>>> developers and users, and I think before a decision can be made to
>>> either change or remain the same we should ensure that community
>>> members are able to voice concerns or suggestions.
>>>
>>> = What =
>>>
>>> I'm writing to propose a change in the licesning scheme for yt.
>>> Currently, yt is licensed under the GPLv3 license.  This license
>>> brings with it an idealogy that I support -- free (as in freedom) and
>>> open source software, and attempts to ensure that the spread of
>>> software spreads those freedoms as well.  This is done through terms
>>> of licensing; while there are several subtleties to how this plays
>>> out, and the goals of FLOSS and the GPL align very well with my own, I
>>> don't believe that it is appropriate for yt to be licensed under the
>>> GPL any more.
>>>
>>> = Why =
>>>
>>> In the scientific software community, for the most part codes and
>>> platforms are released under a permissive, BSD-like license.  This is
>>> not universally true.  Within the scientific python ecosystem
>>> (including projects such as AstroPy), BSD-like licenses are especially
>>> prevalent.  These licenses place no restrictions on redistribution,
>>> passing on freedoms to end users, or making a piece of software
>>> closed-source.  A side effect is that if a piece of software is BSD
>>> licensed, it cannot rely on GPL'd software without itself being
>>> subject to those terms.  Specifically, a BSD licensed package that
>>> requires an import of a GPL'd package is likely itself then subject to
>>> the GPL -- this is why it has been termed "viral" in the past.  As
>>> examples, many BSD-licensed packages exist in the scientific software
>>> community: VisIt, ParaView, MayaVi, NumPy, Matplotlib, IPython, Python
>>> itself, mpi4py, h5py, SymPy, SciPy, most of the scikits,
>>> scikits-learn, NetworkX and so on.  Collaboration with these projects
>>> is currently one-way because of our license.
>>>
>>> When I initially decided on a license for yt (seven years ago) it
>>> seemed appropriate to use the licensing terms as a mechanism to
>>> encourage contributions upstream.  However, within the current
>>> ecosystem, it is clear that because of the virality of the GPL and the
>>> prevailing mindsets of developers, it is actually an impediment to
>>> receiving contributions and receiving mindshare.  John Hunter
>>> described it very clearly in this document:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://nipy.sourceforge.net/software/license/johns_bsd_pitch.html#johns-bsd-pitch
>>>
>>> While he focuses on commercial utilization, I believe that within the
>>> scientific python ecosystem the picture can be broadened to include
>>> any piece of software that is under a permissive license.  yt cannot
>>> be used or relied upon as a primary component without that piece of
>>> software then becoming subject to the terms of the GPL.  Additionally,
>>> some private and public institutions are averse to providing code
>>> under the GPL, specifically version 3 of the GPL.
>>>
>>> By transitioning to a permissive license, we may be able to receive
>>> more contributions and collaborate more widely.  As a few examples,
>>> this could include more direct collaborations with packages such as
>>> Glue, IPython, VisIt, ParaView, and even utilization and exposing of
>>> yt methods and operations in other, permissively-licensed packages.
>>> For example, deep integration between permissively-licensed simulation
>>> codes will benefit from this.  Furthermore, individuals who otherwise
>>> could not contribute code under the GPL (due to employer restrictions)
>>> will be able to contribute code under a permissive license.
>>>
>>> The GPL is designed to prevent turning FLOSS code proprietary.
>>> Changing to a BSD license does not allow another entity to prevent us
>>> from continuing to develop or make available any yt code.  It simply
>>> means that others can utilize it however they see fit.
>>>
>>> I believe that we stand to gain considerably more than we stand to
>>> lose from such a transition.
>>>
>>> More to the point, a few years ago on this mailing list we came up
>>> with a mission statement for yt.  I think we can better serve that
>>> mission statement by enabling broader collaborations within the
>>> scientific software ecosystem.
>>>
>>> This is not motivated by any desire to create a proprietary
>>> distribution of yt -- in fact, exactly the opposite.  Recently I have
>>> begun to think about the future of yt if I, personally, end up having
>>> to depart the community.  I believe that in the current ecosystem of
>>> scientific software, yt will be more sustainable if it is under a
>>> permissive license.
>>>
>>> = License=
>>>
>>> I specifically believe that the IPython license, which is itself the
>>> modified BSD license, is the license we should move to.  I am willing
>>> to entertain other options (such as the PSF license, which matplotlib
>>> uses, or an MIT-like license).  While it is tempting to me to suggest
>>> that we license under the LGPL, I don't think that this would provide
>>> any benefits over moving directly to a fully permissive license.
>>>
>>> http://ipython.org/ipython-doc/dev/about/license_and_copyright.html
>>>
>>> While we are doing this, I would like to suggest we enumerate the
>>> copyright model that IPython does, as that is exactly the copyright
>>> model we exist under currently but it is not specifically identified
>>> in the code base.
>>>
>>> yt will continue to have a GPL-mode, where we can link against GPL'd
>>> libraries such as Rockstar, ExtJS and so on.  However, this mode will
>>> be activated by a specific set of imports or items, and the core yt
>>> functionality will by default not activate any of this mode.  This is
>>> similar to how packages like VisIt and ParaView link against R, which
>>> is itself GPL'd.
>>>
>>> = How =
>>>
>>> If we do decide to make this change, this is the process that it will
>>> take:
>>>
>>>  1) I have created a spreadsheet of every contributor to yt.  This
>>> spreadsheet will be public.
>>>  2) I will individually write to each one, asking for their consent to
>>> relicense their contributions under the new license.
>>>  3) All responses will be directed to yt-svn (rather than yt-dev)
>>> which is a publicly accessible and archived mailing list.  A link to
>>> the archive post for each message will be placed in the spreadsheet.
>>>  4) If we as a project decide that we are committed to moving to a
>>> permissive license and an individual does not consent to change the
>>> license of their code, we will need to either rewrite or remove it.
>>> Alternately, this could serve as a veto for a transition.  We will
>>> discuss this if it arises.
>>>  5) Once complete, I will issue a pull request that changes the
>>> license and makes explicit the copyright policy.
>>>
>>> All previous releases of yt will remain under the GPL, as will any
>>> previous changesets of yt prior to the acceptance of item #5.
>>>
>>> = Votes / Discussion =
>>>
>>> At this time, I would like to request and solicit feedback or votes.
>>>
>>> If you have contributed a large amount of code to yt, please write
>>> back to this email with a Yea or a Nay to this change and any comments
>>> you have about it, or suggestions about a particular license other
>>> than the IPython license.  In particular, if you are opposed to this
>>> change, *please* make your voice heard so that we can have a
>>> productive discussion about it.
>>>
>>> = Thank you =
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.  This email and
>>> initiative is the result of a lot of soul-searching on my part.
>>>
>>> I have come to believe very strongly that as a project we can do more
>>> to support goals of open science, open source, and build a stronger
>>> community by rethinking how we fit into an ecosystem of scientific
>>> software.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20130711/1c95cfda/attachment.html>