Below is a list of licenses currently specified by thorns in CactusNumerical and CactusUtils. I haven't checked the other arrangements, but these two arrangements seem to be pretty inhomogeneous in their specified license, and most currently do not specify LGPL.

CactusNumerical:
* Cartoon2D: LGPL in README
* Dissipation: None
* InterpToArray: None
* LocalInterp: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is Cactus GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* LocalInterp2: LGPLv3
* LocalReduce: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is Cactus GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* MoL: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* Noise: None
* Norms: None
* Periodic: GPLv2
* RelectionSymmetry: GPLv3
* RotatingSymmetry180: GPLv3
* RotatingSymmetry90: GPLv3
* Slab: GPLv2
* SlabTest: GPLv2
* SpaceMask: LGPL in README but COPYRIGHT file is GPL + extra Cactus clause
* SphericalSurface: GPLv2
* SummationByParts: GPLv2
* TestLocalInterp2: GPLv3 in README
* TestLocalReduce: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is GPL + extra Cactus clause

CactusUtils:
* Acccelerator: None
* Formaline: GPLv2
* MPICompat: LGPL in README
* MemSpeed: LGPL2.1
* NaNCatcher: GPLv2
* NaNChecker: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is Cactus GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* Nice: GPLv2+
* NoMPI: GPL in README
* OpenCLRuntime: None
* SystemTopology: LGPL in README, GPLv2 in COPYING
* TerminationTrigger: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is Cactus GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* TimerReport: LGPL in README, COPYRIGHT file is Cactus GPLv2 + extra Cactus clause
* Vectors: GPL in README
* Watchdog: LGPLv2



On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Erik Schnetter <schnetter@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
For Cactus, it is very important that the licence is not standard GPL, as this would make it impossible to use standard Cactus thorns with arbitrary other licences. Cactus needs to be open, and the GPL places too tight a restriction on codes that use Cactus. Of course, this hold only for the standard Cactus thorns (the thorns in arrangements with names starting with "Cactus"); any thorns developed by others can of course be released (or not) under any licence they choose.

The original formulation of the Cactus thorns' licence was somewhat misleading; I believe it used the standard GPL text, and then added a clause that using such a thorn in an application was also allowed. We later noticed that this is essentially the content of the LGPL, and thus changed all Cactus thorns to be released under the LGPL. This policy still stands. If we missed the licence text in a thorn, it should be corrected. If a new thorn was added with GPL as licence, then this needs to be discussed, and either the licence changed or the thorn be moved to an auxiliary arrangement (i.e. not be part of standard Cactus any more).

-erik

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Frank Loeffler <knarf@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:18:44PM -0500, Frank Loeffler wrote:
> Please consider joining the weekly Einstein Toolkit phone call

Present were Barry, Eloisa, Frank, Matt, Peter, Steve, and Zach.

All present agreed that all Cactus thorns should be LGPL. This issue
came up because some thorns already in Cactus were found to contain GPL
license texts (https://trac.einsteintoolkit.org/ticket/1803#comment:7).
However, because of the lack of 'critical mass' on the call, this is
open for debate. If there will be none, this issue is assumed to be
dealt with.

Zach reiterated his request for code review of the compatibility layer
thorns. All are encouraged to do so, and Frank volunteered.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users




--

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users