[Developers] What we need in ADMB
arnima at hafro.is
Fri Jun 18 15:54:44 PDT 2010
On top of the current example, there would be a test.tpl (or several
testA.tpl, testB.tpl, ...) to demonstrate all of the functions
We should probably use separate "Author:" and "Maintainer:" lines, like
packages in R. That answers the previous question about who's responsible
if the package breaks when a new version of ADMB is released. The library
will be kicked out of the archive if the maintainer doesn't submit an
updated version within a few weeks grace period.
Then there's the question what a library really is. We can probably accept
different formats (one source file, one source and one header, multiple
source and header files, and finally true binary libraries), as described
in Steve Martell's article. Since the word "library" has an exact meaning
in C++, we may actually decide to use the word "package" instead. I think
that would avoid confusion and it's the term that R, LaTeX, Emacs, Python,
and others use for the same thing.
Regarding the license, I don't think we need to worry. We would probably
recommend BSD, but I can't see a problem using a GPL, LGPL, or proprietary
package. A proprietary package could be distributed as a binary library.
It's only in the rare case when we'd like to promote a function from a
user package to the ADMB core that the license should be BSD. The package
author would then release that function under BSD and the updated package
(minus the function, which is now available in core ADMB) under whatever
license the author prefers.
Imagine, for example, a fisheries lab that is working on an ADMB package,
and they're trying to fund the development by applying for a grant,
selling it to an industry partner, or whatever. As part of the
development, they want to release a beta version to colleagues around the
world. It would feel silly for a grant fund or an industry partner to be
asked to pay for something that's free online. So the lab can release the
beta version as a proprietary library, but the finished version will be
released as free software.
I don't know whether this is a realistic example, but when I first heard
that ADMB was BSD rather than GPL, I imagined something like this. It's an
interesting reversal of the more traditional starting as freeware and then
start selling the "full professional" version. At any rate, I have later
gathered that ADMB is not GPL because the dev team considers it viral,
which is true. But I suppose we would be just as viral if we forced all
package authors to release their packages under BSD :)
Boy, licenses are the only boring thing about open source ... inseparable
as alcohol and hangover.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Arni Magnusson wrote:
> I love it.
> Could the full author entry, copyright, year, and license all be on the
> \mainpage? In other words, have one "Author" line and only leave the $Id
> placeholder above the \mainpage?
> I got so excited inside the Doxygen browser that I was hoping to be able
> to peek at the raw source code file(s) from within the Doxygen browser,
> but maybe Doxygen doesn't offer that. Instead, I had to return to the
> Plone webpage and open the raw source code file from there. And then
> back to Doxygen for some more browsing.
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, John Sibert wrote:
>> Arni -
>> Have a look at http://admb-project.org/community/libraries/dnorm and tell
>> me if you think it is helpful.
More information about the Developers