[BioSQL-l] license

[Chris Fields]

BioPerl distros just changed to specifically allow Artistic and GPL.   
I think Artistic v2 kicks in when Perl 5.10 or Perl6 is released, but  
I'm not sure.

For BioSQL I think any of the specific licenses you mention (GPL,  
LGPL, BSD, Artistic 2) would be fine.  I'm a fan of GPL myself.

chris

On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:24 PM, 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
> -- 
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BioSQL-l mailing list
> BioSQL-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biosql-l

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher
Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
Dept of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign