[BioPython] licensing (was PDBParser & Structure class)

[clee@spiralis.merseine.nu]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Dalke <adalke@mindspring.com> writes:

    Andrew> Thomas Hamelryck:
    >> Is a GNU lesser public license acceptable for Biopython?

    Andrew> Not for me.  I long time ago decided that because I also develop
    Andrew> proprietary systems I can't look at GPL/LGPL source code in my field
    Andrew> because otherwise I may accidentally introduce ideas from that code
    Andrew> into non-GPL'ed systems.  (I believe the legal term is that I would
    Andrew> be "tainted".)

I realize this may be off topic, but I'm worried that you may be spreading a
misconception about the (L)GPL.  Copyright law specifically *doesn't* apply to
ideas.  The LGPL would prevent you from copy/pasting (or or translating) code
into your proprietary code, but you would be free to take ideas in LGPL code and
use it in proprietary work.  The best analogy might be with scientific
publications.  The copyright is usually owned by the authors or journal
publisher, so you can't copy/republish figures or text without permission
(leaving out fair use), but the ideas and results may be used freely.

Your worry about "tainting" is valid if you frequently work with both free and
non-free software projects simultaneously and if you copy code back and forth.
However, for any code you write yourself, you own it and can control the
licensing---issue it both under the biopython license and any proprietary
license you'd like.

-chris

-- 
Christopher Lee
Washington University Dept. of Anatomy and Neurobiology