[BioSQL-l] license

[David Scott]

is any kind of approval needed from the biosql authors to change the 
license?

Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> I realized that BioSQL is licensed under "the same terms as Perl  
> itself", and then references the Perl Artistic License.
>
> First of all, Perl has changed its licensing terms to allow the GPL  
> as an alternative, and the Artistic License for Perl will be upgraded  
> to v2.0.
>
> Aside from all that, I'm not sure that it makes all that much sense  
> to couple the license terms to those of Perl. Maybe a more technology- 
> neutral license would be more appropriate, such as the GPL alone,  
> LGPL, or simply MIT (or new BSD) license. Or just the Artistic  
> Licence v2.0?
>
> LGPL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
> MIT: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> BSD: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> Artistic 2.0: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic- 
> license-2.0.php
>
> No action is probably not an option (b/c issues with Artistic v1.0  
> and changes in Perl licensing). Any thoughts, opinions?
>
> 	-hilmar
>