[Biopython-dev] Adopting BSD 3-Clause license for Biopython?

Peter Cock p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 24 09:13:06 UTC 2013


Hello all,

Something Brad and I chatted about during the BOSC 2013 CodeFest
was should we switch the Biopython licence to something which is
formally approved as "Open Source" by The Open Source Initiative
(OSI): http://opensource.org/licenses

The current Biopython License is very short and liberal, and I have
long described it as an MIT/BSD type licence. However the actual
wording matches neither of these exactly (as far as I could tell):

http://biopython.org/DIST/LICENSE
https://github.com/biopython/biopython/blob/master/LICENSE

In theory we could ask the OSI to approve our current license, but as
they explain "yet another license" is not a good thing to encourage:
http://opensource.org/proliferation

Brad and I thought it would be reasonable to adopt a standard
MIT/BSD licence instead.

Note that the following lack a "no endorsement" clause which we
have currently:

http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

Therefore this looks like the closest match:

http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

i.e. The BSD 3-Clause ("BSD New" or "BSD Simplified") license.
This is also used by the NumPy project and many other Python
libraries.

Assuming people agree this is a good idea, we can start doing
this on a file-by-file basis (checking for approval from the named
copyright holders) and to be rigorous check with every named
contributor in the CONTRIB or NEWS files.

Peter



More information about the Biopython-dev mailing list