Open source license

[sampotter]

We should pick an open source license for this package. I have no preference as to which license we choose. It should be a license which makes it easy and straightforward for this library to be used in the communities in which it is most likely to gain traction.

There's also this: https://code.nasa.gov/#/guide

Thoughts?

@emazarico @nschorgh @steo85it

[steo85it]

In the past, I used both GPLv3 or MIT licenses (I guess you know this https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ ). Both would be fine for python-flux, I think.
I never passed through the process of having a soft approved for the NASA github: it can be interesting, but maybe not really needed for the moment (?).

[sampotter]

What exactly are the benefits of the NASA GitHub? I assume if it were approved Erwan would be able to contribute? ;-)

[steo85it]

Not sure, probably @emazarico knows (I though "just" appearing on a list of NASA-backed software packages).
What would be (more, I think) interesting would be to get a doi for the software on Zenodo - for that one just needs to generate a release and give a brief description. In any case, the choice of a license has the priority on all of this.

[nschorgh]

Last time I did this, I picked LICENSE-CC-BY-NC.TXT but the "NC" is optional. I believe Creative Commons (CC) is the essential part for NASA. Placing a license file like this in the repository would serve that purpose. There's also this: https://code.nasa.gov/#/guide

This is NASA internal, so at least it doesn't apply to you and me. Message ID: ***@***.***>

…

[nschorgh]

What I do is: Just before submission of the manuscript I create a release on github so I can cite this specific release from the paper. I also get a doi from Zenodo for the release, but in retrospective that doi has never been of much use.
Anyway, first we have to write the paper. @sampotter @steo85it