[Biojava-dev] Biojava license

[george waldon]

50 developers is not a too large number and, even if a few could not be contacted, an agreement covering more than 95% or even 99% of the code is probably reachable at the present time. This will require some kind of organization. Isn't it more the role of the OBF to do such a think? Why not having a real copyright transfer agreement so that the OBF has copyright on the different projects, can operate license changes if necessary, and defends in case of copyright breach.

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Prlic [mailto:ap3 at sanger.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: george waldon
> Cc: biojava-dev at biojava.org
> Subject: Re: [Biojava-dev] LGPL information forgotten at
> BlastLikeDataSetCollection.dtd ?
> 
> We have about 50 people who ever did a CVS commit.
> It will be hard to get permission for any change from everybody who
> holds copyright, even
> if  there was an agreement to change the license.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how the Linux kernel will deal with the v3
> issue,
> but I think Linus said that they are going to stay with v2.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 Nov 2007, at 17:37, george waldon wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question here. It seems to me that to change the license
> > in biojava, like going from LGPL 2.1 to LGPL 3, we need the
> > agreement of all copyright holders, past and present (there is no
> > copyright transfer agreement in biojava). Is-this really feasible?
> >
> > George
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: biojava-dev-bounces at lists.open-bio.org [mailto:biojava-dev-
> >> bounces at lists.open-bio.org] On Behalf Of Richard Holland
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:34 AM
> >> To: Michael Heuer
> >> Cc: biojava-dev at lists.open-bio.org; Steffen Moeller
> >> Subject: Re: [Biojava-dev] LGPL information forgotten at
> >> BlastLikeDataSetCollection.dtd ?
> >>
> >>
> >>> The LICENSE file at biojava/LICENSE contains the text of version
> >>> 2.1 of
> >>> the LPGL.
> >>>
> >>> We should make this explicit, by including "version 2.1",
> >>> "version 2.1
> >> or
> >>> any later version", "version 3", or "version 3 or any later
> >>> version" in
> >>> the LICENSE file and all the license headers.
> >>
> >> my vote is for "version 2.1 or any later version".
> > _______________________________________________
> > biojava-dev mailing list
> > biojava-dev at lists.open-bio.org
> > http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>