[BioPython] Phylogenetics trees

[Rick Ree]

Regarding the licensing differences between mavric and biopython, IANAL
either :)  I would like to keep mavric under the GPL though (no flames
please!)  So maybe the best thing to do is keep mavric separate from the
biopython distribution, but let biopython users know it is available--
maybe a link to it on the 'Related' page of the website?

If anyone has suggestions of ways in which mavric could be developed to
work better with biopython, please let me know. 

--Rick

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Andrew Dalke wrote:

> There is a licensing difference between Mavric and biopython.  Mavric
> is distributed under the GNU GPL while biopython uses the Python license,
> "with the serial numbers scratched off."  It's basically the same as
> the modified BSD license.
> 
> The GPL says:
> > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is
> > a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
> > the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
> > to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who
> > wrote it.
> 
> I want my contributions to stay BSD-like, or rather, want some way for
> people to use my contributions under a BSD-like license.  That clause
> of the GPL means that if Mavric code is added to biopython then any
> of my work included in a biopython distribution must also be licensed
> under the GPL.
> 
> Whether or not my contributions are then available under both the
> current license and the GPL or only the GPL, I'm not enough of an lawyer
> to say.  (That is, can someone get the biopython distribution, pull
> out the Mavric parts and use only the BSD-like license on the rest?
> Probably, if the copyright is owned by me.  Probably not if anyone made
> any changes under the expectation that the changes were under the GPL.)
> 
> That means I will need some other way to distribute my software, which
> is a distinct negative point - two code bases, or some way to extract
> one part from the other, including notifying people about the differences
> in the parts they are modifying.
> 
> Therefore I argue against including Mavric code in biopython unless the
> inclusion is made under a more lenient license, like the LGPL.
> (Lenient in this case means accepting of non-GPL software.)
> 
> I suppose this might end up in a yet another licensing flame war (*sigh*)
> so I'll just point to http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?aid=7125
> for a description and leave it at that.