Entry one of #46 is answered, and this issue writes the answer down where a
decision lives. The answer, decided 2026-08-24: GPL-3.0, and one licence for
both the runner and the experiment content.
The reason is the direction the work actually moves. The common case is
promotion into the plugin boards this organisation already keeps under GPL-3.0,
and the hand-over path was designed around exactly that: code moving from an
experiment into one of those plugins needs no relicensing. Deriving the
population rather than trusting a number written here:
gh repo list Flowfin --limit 100 --json name --jq '.[].name' | while read -r r; do
printf '%s %s\n' "$r" "$(gh api "repos/Flowfin/$r" --jq '.license.spdx_id // "none"')"
done
One licence rather than two answers the related question entry one raises. The
runner is downloaded and run while the experiments are read and copied from, so
the audiences differ, but a second licence buys nothing here and costs a reader
having to work out which of two sets of terms the thing in front of them is
under.
The record has to carry the cost of the answer as well as the answer, because
that cost is real and does not go away by being unwritten: a result that would
be useful to a permissively licensed project cannot go there, and an experiment
that wants to borrow permissively licensed code and give something back is
constrained.
LICENSE is already on the default branch and the platform reads AGPL-3.0 out
of its bytes, which is not what this entry answers, so the file and this answer
disagree today:
gh api repos/Flowfin/lab --jq '.license.spdx_id'
Reading that command before writing the record is the point of naming it here.
#47 is the issue that lands the file the answer names; this one is the record.
What section three of the record has to list, from the options as entry one
states them: Apache-2.0, MIT, CC0 or a public-domain dedication, and leaving the
repository unlicensed. Section four says what each would have cost, and entry one
of #46 already sets those out.
Done when docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md exists on the
default branch, carries the four sections record 0000 fixes, names GPL-3.0 and
says the runner and the experiment content are under one licence, gives the
promotion-without-relicensing reason, states the cost in the permissive
direction, and lists in sections three and four every option entry one names
with what each would have cost.
Entry one of #46 is answered, and this issue writes the answer down where a
decision lives. The answer, decided 2026-08-24: GPL-3.0, and one licence for
both the runner and the experiment content.
The reason is the direction the work actually moves. The common case is
promotion into the plugin boards this organisation already keeps under GPL-3.0,
and the hand-over path was designed around exactly that: code moving from an
experiment into one of those plugins needs no relicensing. Deriving the
population rather than trusting a number written here:
One licence rather than two answers the related question entry one raises. The
runner is downloaded and run while the experiments are read and copied from, so
the audiences differ, but a second licence buys nothing here and costs a reader
having to work out which of two sets of terms the thing in front of them is
under.
The record has to carry the cost of the answer as well as the answer, because
that cost is real and does not go away by being unwritten: a result that would
be useful to a permissively licensed project cannot go there, and an experiment
that wants to borrow permissively licensed code and give something back is
constrained.
LICENSEis already on the default branch and the platform reads AGPL-3.0 outof its bytes, which is not what this entry answers, so the file and this answer
disagree today:
Reading that command before writing the record is the point of naming it here.
#47 is the issue that lands the file the answer names; this one is the record.
What section three of the record has to list, from the options as entry one
states them: Apache-2.0, MIT, CC0 or a public-domain dedication, and leaving the
repository unlicensed. Section four says what each would have cost, and entry one
of #46 already sets those out.
Done when
docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.mdexists on thedefault branch, carries the four sections record
0000fixes, names GPL-3.0 andsays the runner and the experiment content are under one licence, gives the
promotion-without-relicensing reason, states the cost in the permissive
direction, and lists in sections three and four every option entry one names
with what each would have cost.