[BioSQL-l] license

[Hilmar Lapp]

I'll summarize my considerations over the last couple days here:

- Artistic 2.0:
   * Pro: Most in line with BioPerl and Perl.
   * Con: Only in line with BioPerl and Perl. I.e., not used by any  
other relevant project.

- LGPL v3.0:
   * Pro: Widely used and accepted. Has standardized disclaimer for  
file headers. Supported by the FSF. Used by Biojava already.
   * Con: Talks a lot about executable code and library code, which  
feels a bit odd for a SQL schema.

- CC by Attribution:
   * Pro: Possibly the most appropriate for the IP behind the model.
   * Con: Would be rather unusual, not used by any Bio* project, and  
rarely used for sw projects

- MIT license:
   * Pro: Short and sweet, the disclaimer is the license. A variant  
seems to be used by Biopython.
   * Con: Not sure this is expressly used by any Bio* project yet.  
Not entirely clear whether it isn't too liberal (but probably not).

Using the principles of least surprise, widest support, and  
simplicity, my first vote would be for LGPL, followed by MIT.

If you have a strong leaning one way or the other do let me know, but  
unless I hear otherwise I think the license question just needs to be  
settled in a reasonable and conscious way so we can move on to more  
important issues.

So, if putting BioSQL under LGPL v3.0 makes you uncomfortable, speak  
now, or forever hold your peace :-)

	-hilmar


On Feb 14, 2008, at 2:20 AM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> 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 :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>

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