Which license for new code? about libcellml-archived HOT 4 CLOSED

I don't think we want to use MPL. I think something more along the lines of MIT or BSD would be best. This convinced me that BSD is best: http://www.astrobetter.com/the-whys-and-hows-of-licensing-scientific-code/

from libcellml-archived.

FWIW, and after having done my own personal research, I was going to release OpenCOR under the 3-clause BSD license, but then I was told (see https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3558) that it doesn't provide patent protection (should that ever be necessary) while Apache 2.0 does for example, in addition to being OSI approved, business friendly, having no copyleft and being compatible with major OSI licenses. So, in the end, I went for Apache 2.0 license rather than the 3-clause BSD one.

from libcellml-archived.

Providing the licence chosen is open source and doesn't restrict use of the new library in both commercial and BSD-licensed code, then I don't mind what is used. Chaste uses BSD now (we used to use LGPL but switched so as to gain an industry collaboration) so the licence needs to be compatible with that if we're to use it.

from libcellml-archived.

We'll go with Apache 2.0 for now.

from libcellml-archived.