Added LGPLv3 to top-level of repo.

This is a possibly controversial MR. Feel free to reject.

At the moment, we say that 'you should have received a version of the LGPLv3 with this software'. We do not currently distribute a copy of the LGPL. We distribute a copy of the GPLv3 with our COPYING text file.

I propose that we either:

• Move COPYING to LICENSE.md and include a markdown version of the GPLv3, or
• Remove COPYING and leave this version of the LGPLv3.

@pdraper @matthieu @nnrw56 please could you comment on this.

changed the description

The reason this has come up is because I will be licensing the swiftsimio wrapper under the LGPLv3.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Sums up the position, do we want to force use only in free software projects, or not. If not we do need the LGPL.

This is touchy. Some industrial support cannot be obtained if the license is too restrictive. Worth keeping in mind.

This is correct. All our source files say we license under LGPL v3 but the COPYING file is the GPL v3. So that's wrong.

We should at least make things consistent and use LGPL v3 at the top of the repo.

I suggest to change the content of the COPYING file to the correct license.

@jborrow what it the rational for the LICENSE.md file?

I just changed the license file to md because it is quite long and it displays more nicely -- feel free to change this for the plaintext version.

Oh, right. We would then also remove the COPYING one then.

Any objections from anyone to actually give the licence we say we use? (@nnrw56 @pdraper)

None from me.

added 1 commit

• c7e39191 - Use the recommended filename for the LGPL licence.

Compare with previous version

merged

mentioned in commit 091dc8e3

We still seem to have a copy of COPYING with the GPL license. I assume this isn't intended?

Accroding to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html the way to licence your code under LGPL is to have the GPL in the COPYING file and the addendum in COPYING.LESSER to make it lgpl.

I see, that is confusing, anyone quickly looking would assume the project is just GPL and move on. Life was simpler in the V2 days. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree. Do you have a better way of indicating this? Like adding something to the README?

Might be a good place to add a prominent note. AFAIK we don't use the actual GPL anywhere, including our main.c (which I guess is odd, but so what), so why not.