[Biopython-dev] Adopting BSD 3-Clause license for Biopython?
Andrew Dalke
dalke at dalkescientific.com
Mon Aug 5 21:18:06 EDT 2013
On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
> The current Biopython License is very short and liberal, and I have
> long described it as an MIT/BSD type licence. However the actual
> wording matches neither of these exactly (as far as I could tell):
That's my doing. When Jeff and I started Biopython in 1999 we
needed to choose a license. We started with the Python license,
which (for 1.5.2) was:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the names of Stichting Mathematisch
Centrum or CWI or Corporation for National Research Initiatives or
CNRI not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
distribution of the software without specific, written prior
permission.
While CWI is the initial source for this software, a modified version
is made available by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives
(CNRI) at the Internet address ftp://ftp.python.org.
STICHTING MATHEMATISCH CENTRUM AND CNRI DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH
REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL STICHTING MATHEMATISCH
CENTRUM OR CNRI BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR
PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Compare that to the Biopython license, with the alterations marked:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
and its documentation >>>with or without modifications<< and for
any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that
>>any copyright notices<<< appear in all copies and that both
>>>those copyright notices<<< and this permission notice appear
in supporting documentation, and that the names of >>>the
contributors or copyright holders<<< not be used in advertising
or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without
specific prior permission.
[2nd paragraph of original Python license omitted]
>>>THE CONTRIBUTORS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OF THIS SOFTWARE<<<
DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING
ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT
SHALL >>>THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS<<< BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION,
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
THIS SOFTWARE.
This was called a "Python-style license", and you can see an
example at http://effbot.org/zone/copyright.htm . Indeed, his
PIL package is an example of a current Python module which
still uses that license:
http://www.pythonware.com/products/pil/license.htm
You'll see that Fredrik Lundh refers to it as the "Historical
Permission Notice and Disclaimer", and points to:
http://opensource.org/licenses/historical.php
Further note that the OSI comments that "This License has been
voluntarily deprecated by its author" .. whatever that
means ... and that that http://opensource.org/proliferation-report
describes it as "redundant with more popular licenses", and
more specifically the BSD.
> In theory we could ask the OSI to approve our current license, but as
> they explain "yet another license" is not a good thing to encourage:
> http://opensource.org/proliferation
It wouldn't be a "yet another license" as it's already
registered with the OSI ... almost.
The one odd alteration I made was to add "with or without
modifications", because some people on comp.lang.python
expressed concern that "use, copy, modify, and distribute"
could be interpreted to be restrictive, as in "you can
modify it original source code, or distribute the original
source code, but you can't distribute the modified source
code. I've since learned that this is a hyper-picky
interpretation with no legal bearing.
I don't know if that "with or without modifications" is
enough different that the OSI would say it's doesn't fall
under the 'Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer',
In any case, I agree with a relicensing. The current
license is from a bygone era. Nowadays I just pick the MIT
license.
If there's anything copyright by me still remaining in
Biopython, I hereby relicense it under the MIT and/or one
of the standard n-clause BSD licenses, at your choice.
Cheers,
Andrew
dalke at dalkescientific.com
More information about the Biopython-dev
mailing list