Question: (Closed) What Is The Best License To Use When Distributing Open-Source Software?
4
gravatar for Steve Moss
2.2 years ago by
Steve Moss1.9k
/dev/null
Steve Moss1.9k wrote:

Possible Duplicate:
What license do you use when you release code and data?

I just wanted to ask the opinion of everyone here on the best form of open-source license to use for distributing any (bioinformatics) software I produce as part of my PhD?

I am currently looking at using the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license as detailed here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ but wonder if anyone has any other suggestions? I have also considered the GPL v3, but I aren't sure on the exact differences!

I want the software to be freely available and easily distributed, although would prefer it not be used for commercial gain and of course I would like to have my hard work cited, should it be used by others, as well as requiring them to distribute under the same sort of license.

I also make use of BioPerl and the Perl EnsEMBL API, amongst other CPAN libraries, so will I have to make sure the license I choose is compatible with the licenses used for all their code?

ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.1 years ago by Frédéric Mahé1.6k • written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

Slight edit to my question, adding info on GPL v3.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

I think this is off-topic and should be closed, for the record.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Daniel Swan10k

Closed as offtopic. Perhaps http://oss.ly/licdif would be helpful.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Daniel Swan10k

Is this really off topic? I think licensing options for bioinformatics software is relevant? Especially given the current open-access movement!

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

Would a change to "bioinformatics software" in the title suffice?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

That 2 people like it and it have been favourite'd once obviously means some people think it relevant?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

That 2 people like it and it has been favourite'd once obviously means some people think it relevant?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

If not off-topic (I suggest it's borderline, not enough to close it imo) it has been discussed before:http://biostar.stackexchange.com/questions/349/what-license-do-you-use-when-you-release-code-and-data but tagged 'licensing'.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Michael Dondrup27k

Thanks for the link! It didn't come up in the list when I typed in the question, otherwise I wouldn't have asked! The oss.ly/licdif link was helpful though :)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k

"Is this really off topic?" No. It's definitely not off topic. Just a result of different views on what constitutes the usefulness of a community.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by seidel4.5k

It's a discussion about licencing software, not bioinformatics, and therefore it is off-topic. This is regardless of whether people like the question, have opinions about it, or wish to answer it ;)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Daniel Swan10k

My bioinformatics work over the past 25 years has been heavily impacted by software licenses. Someone producing bioinformatics software in an academic setting wants to query a community of bioinformatics people on a topic relevant to their work, and you want them to conclude that they better not ask this community of bioinformatics people? I don't understand that. Then again, I'm not fond of having reality dictated to me :)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by seidel4.5k

It looks like it is controversial, if it is controversial, then it could be re-opened, because we wouldn't loose much by it, but as it has been asked already (and previously not closed, but marked subjective) we would open and close it as duplicate, does this make sense?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Michael Dondrup27k

I would have been fine with it being closed as a duplicate (as it now has been), I just didn't feel it was off-topic! Many thanks for reconsidering the status!

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k
2
gravatar for Frédéric Mahé
2.2 years ago by
Kaiserslautern, Germany
Frédéric Mahé1.6k wrote:

The GNU General Public License (version 2 or 3) is also a possibility to consider. Software placed under that license are freely available, can be shared (as long as authors are properly credited). Commercial gain is not forbidden but the obligation to publish the source code makes it virtually pointless (with the source code anyone can compile new copies for free).

ADD COMMENTlink written 2.2 years ago by Frédéric Mahé1.6k

Yeah, I had been looking at using GPL v3 too! What are the differences between the two, does anyone know?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.2 years ago by Steve Moss1.9k
Please log in to add an answer.
The thread is closed. No new answers may be added.

Help
Access
  • RSS
  • Stats
  • API

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.0.0
Traffic: 332 users visited in the last hour