[BioSQL-l] license

[Hilmar Lapp]

I realized that the license is probably one of the few things we  
really need to sort out before release (though voice your opinion if  
you feel that shouldn't hold anything up).

I haven't ever followed up on this since Oct. My current summary is:

- It seems that there aren't any objections to Artistic 2.0.

- There don't seem to be issues with LGPL either. It feels a bit odd  
to me to apply a license that takes about 'library' and 'application'  
all the time to a relational model, though that might be just fine.  
Also, there is in fact program code (perl only so far) in the BioSQL  
repository, so LPGL is most definitely applicable at least to some  
parts.

- I've also wondered about using Creative Commons by Attribution.

At any rate, I think using one license for the program source code  
and another one for the schema definitions seems overkill or even  
silly - though do speak up if you feel differently.

Does anyone have any thoughts or concerns about this?

	-hilmar

On Oct 1, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Chris Fields wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:-  hlapp at gmx dot net :
===========================================================