[BioSQL-l] license

[Hilmar Lapp]

Just FYI, I have changed the license to LGPL now. The BioSQL schema  
(including phylodb extension) is now licensed under LGPL, in all  
versions.

There are a few perl scripts developed by Jamie Estill during last  
years Summer of Code that are (still) under Perl/Artistic license  
(but these won't be in the release since they depend on the phylodb  
extension). All perl scripts that will be in the 1.0 release are also  
under LGPL.

	-hilmar


On Feb 18, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> 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 :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BioSQL-l mailing list
> BioSQL-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biosql-l

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