Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #2559

closed

CAMS license problem

Added by Rafael Bailon-Ruiz 9 months ago. Updated 8 months ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Start date:
2020-11-12
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Inconsistent licensing

nephelae_base, nephelae_mesonh and nephelae_paparazzi have the BSD 3-clause

nephelae_gui, nephelae_planner and nephelae_utils don't have any license

No explicit license for the source code = Privative software, therefore no one can use it besides LAAS employees.

Incompatible license

Paparazzi is provided with the GNU version 2 or later license. This means CAMS has to be GNU version 2 or later because we use the pprzlink library.

Proposed solution

Hence, we should find an adequate ( libre of course!) software license for CAMS. Potential candidates:

  • GPLv3+
  • AGPLv3+

We can stay on GPL for CAMS or move to AGPL in this particular case as it is adapted to programs used on servers. Because CAMS has a very strong web dimension choosing AGPL provides end users with a guarantee of getting access to the source code. Regular GPL only requires providing the sources with the binary code but not when the program is used through a network...

I think none of the paparazzi developers will sue LAAS, but we need to think about future potential users of CAMS that could be in danger due to our licensing malpractice!

Actions #1

Updated by Simon Lacroix 9 months ago

Rafael Bailon-Ruiz wrote:

Inconsistent licensing

nephelae_base, nephelae_mesonh and nephelae_paparazzi have the BSD 3-clause

nephelae_gui, nephelae_planner and nephelae_utils don't have any license

No explicit license for the source code = Privative software, therefore no one can use it besides LAAS employees.

Incompatible license

Paparazzi is provided with the GNU version 2 or later license. This means CAMS has to be GNU version 2 or later because we use the pprzlink library.

Proposed solution

Hence, we should find an adequate ( libre of course!) software license for CAMS. Potential candidates:

  • GPLv3+
  • AGPLv3+

We can stay on GPL for CAMS or move to AGPL in this particular case as it is adapted to programs used on servers. Because CAMS has a very strong web dimension choosing AGPL provides end users with a guarantee of getting access to the source code. Regular GPL only requires providing the sources with the binary code but not when the program is used through a network...

I think none of the paparazzi developers will sue LAAS, but we need to think about future potential users of CAMS that could be in danger due to our licensing malpractice!

Rafa, yesterday (Thu. Nov. the 12th) I talked to Gautier about this. He said there was no issue, as we are only linked to Ivy, which has a BSD-like license. He also said you might get back to him about this.

Actions #2

Updated by Rafael Bailon-Ruiz 8 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved
Actions #3

Updated by Rafael Bailon-Ruiz 8 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Closed
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF