Correct the description of how modules are distributed so it matches how
PROTEUS actually packages its dependencies, soften the licensing claims
where the position is a matter of interpretation, and fix the patent and
Matplotlib wording. Repair two documentation links that pointed at 404
URLs, and add the License page to the main menu and footer.

Drop the absolute claims and filler phrasings, soften the one remaining
flat licensing assertion, and acknowledge that domain-specific solver codes
are often copyleft rather than implying permissive licensing is universal.

The Apache 2.0 section now leads with reach and follows with a
condensed patent rationale, scoped to what the license actually
grants. The GPL section states the practical cases plainly: running
PROTEUS with a GPL module privately imposes no copyleft obligation,
redistribution is governed by the GPL. A short section on development
in public repositories covers the open development promise in the
title.

Corrections: pandas did not grow out of academia, so the precedent
sentence now names Astropy instead; the modules bullet says that some
modules install from FormingWorlds-maintained forks under the
upstream license rather than claiming no re-hosting; the credit
section distinguishes license notices from scientific credit.

Also trims repetition, splits overlong sentences, and evens out the
register throughout.

The GPL section stated our reading as if it were settled. Whether
run-time coupling of independent programs forms a combined work is a
long-standing, unresolved question, and the page now says so directly.
Our position stays the same but is framed as a pragmatic view grounded
in the modular architecture, with the practical consequences explicitly
conditional on that reading.

The GPL section now opens with the point that copyleft obligations
attach when a combined work is distributed, not when programs are run,
so no sentence can be misread before the resolution arrives. The
one-way compatibility rule now speaks of code bases distributed under
each license instead of the ambiguous "project". The combined-work
boundary question now cites both readings: the Free Software
Foundation's broad one and the independent-programs reading argued
since Rosen (2003).

Adds supporting references across the page: the GNU four freedoms, the
Open Source Definition and the OSI license list, the UNESCO open
science framework, Ince et al. (2012) on reproducibility, the FAIR
principles for research software, and Woelfle et al. (2011) on open
science as a research accelerator.

Also merges the open source policy and open development sections into
one, notes that development happens dominantly under the FormingWorlds
organisation, and makes all external links open in a new tab.

Cover documentation, data, figures, and brand marks, which the page did not address before. Documentation, website text, and figures use CC BY 4.0; lookup tables, reference data, and archive deposits use CC0 1.0; logos and brand marks stay under reserved copyright with a usage note.

Explain why no asset carries a noncommercial restriction: it would fail the Open Definition and undercut the same reach that motivates the permissive software license, while attribution is already required by CC BY. Note how mixed archive deposits are handled and give CC BY-SA 4.0 as the share-alike fallback.

Correct several claims in the new assets section: name the repositories that require or default to CC0 (Dryad, figshare, Dataverse) rather than implying every repository does, since Zenodo, our own archive, defaults to CC BY; qualify that many, not all, open access journals use CC BY; describe CC0 as a public-domain dedication as far as the law allows rather than a flat placement in the public domain; and separate the trademark and copyright points for the logo.

Also resolve a mismatch between the table and the prose on archive deposits, state the journal-republication reason for keeping figures under CC BY in prose instead of only in a table cell, and add a line making explicit that the reserved logo is the single exception to otherwise open licensing.

The paragraph read as a defence against a noncommercial clause, which presumes the reader knows that option was on the table. Rewrite it to explain plainly how the assets are licensed and why: open reuse for any purpose with attribution, the same reasoning as the permissive software license.

Across the page, list research users before institutional and commercial ones. In the assets section, lead with researchers and universities; in the scientific-software examples, put institutions before companies.