[Biopython-dev] Adopting BSD 3-Clause license for Biopython?

[Andrew Dalke]

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