Move LSUThorns into git repositories at Bitbucket

Create issue
Issue #1803 closed
Erik Schnetter created an issue


Comments (11)

  1. Barry Wardell
    • removed comment

    I'm looking into moving the thorns at the moment. It was suggested in[ another ticket] the thorns be moved as follows:

    • PeriodicCarpet into Carpet
    • QuasiLocalMeasures into EinsteinAnalysis
    • SummationByParts into CactusNumerical (needs license to be LGPL) or Numerical if code does not adhere to the stricter Cactus rules (ie it really needs documenation for that)
    • Vectors into CactusUtils or Utils (same as SummationByParts)

    The first two are straightforward and I think their suggested new homes are fine. Any objections to switching SummationByParts and Vectors from GPL to LGPL? Would we need the agreement of all authors before doing so? Or is the copyright considered to be held by the authors listed in the README (there are no copyright headers in the source files)? The committers (and number of commits) to SummationByParts are: diener (77), schnetter (31), korobkin (8), eschnett (6), tiglio (4), knarf (1) and the committers to Vectors are: eschnett (70), svn_bwardell (11), knarf (3), barry.wardell (2), hinder (2).

    As far as Vectors is concerned, I'm fine with a switch to LGPL.

  2. Peter Diener
    • removed comment

    For SummationByParts I think we only need Erik and me to agree to a change of License. I don't mind. Most likely I will not have time to improve on (or add) documentation any time soon.

  3. Barry Wardell
    • removed comment

    I have merged the repositories and made the results available for review at the following locations:

    If these look OK, then I can push them to the actual ET/Cactus repositories. Then, the only thing left to do is update the license to LGPL and update the Einstein Toolkit thornlist.

  4. Barry Wardell
    • removed comment

    Looking inside CactusNumerical and CactusUtils, it seems that most of the thorns there are GPL, not LGPL. So is it OK to just keep the existing GPL license for the new thorns?

  5. Frank Löffler
    • removed comment

    All should be LGPL. If this isn't clear we need to change this, and make sure authors are aware and ok with it.

  6. Barry Wardell
    • removed comment

    I guess the license issue can be dealt with independently of merging LSUThorns (and anyway we have approval from the authors to switch those to LGPL), so are there any objections to pushing the merged repositories to the main Cactus/Carpet/ET repositories?

  7. Log in to comment