Feedback

type to search

What is the CML license?

Asked by [ Editor ]

What's the license on CML? I went looking for it in the repository but failed to find mention of a copyright or license. The only thing I found was in the Jumbo source

All JUMBO code is distributed under the Open Source Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org). You are free to modify the code but if you do it may no longer be distributed under the name JUMBO (or a derivative) without permission of Peter Murray-Rust. Any distribution must acknowledge the origins and also include copies of the JUMBO source (see Artistic License for details). You may not claim that a modified version is a compliant CML system and may not assert that it reads or writes CML. CML Schema is distributed under a Creative Commons license, allowing redistribution but NOT derivative works. This is to ensure that the schema does not mutate.

Peter Murray-Rust Henry Rzepa

2006-04-07

The CML SourceForge page under "Project Details" says "Artistic License", but I assume that's for JUMBO and not for CML itself.

I've searched and searched but found nothing else about this.

UPDATE:

I've been talking about this with PMR, including discussion on the BO-discuss list. It appears that he's going to explicitly license it under the "Artistic License 2.0", which is less confusing than that Artistic License. I don't know if he's going to keep in the above listed restrictions on using the term "CML compliant" and if a modified version can claim to read CML. One problem is that CDK (or was that Bioclipse? Or both?) is distributing a modified version of the JUMBO code, and I'm certain they and PMR want to continue to say the package supports CML.

Imported from: http://blueobelisk.stackexchange.com/questions/102

or Cancel

3 answers

1

rich apodaca [ Editor ]

As far as a license on the CML schema itself goes, I have found none. I also found no license in the repo linked to in the question. It's not clear that this is in fact a maintained repo because the last changes all seem to have been made 2-3 years ago.

Also, I would encourage anyone applying the Artistic License to their own work or using software under its terms to read this from Lawrence Rosin, the lawyer who wrote the book on the subject of open source licenses. Then run it by your own lawyer.

An excerpt:

The Artistic License is one such amateur license. It is a license that a lawyer would have difficulty explaining and that a judge would probably not be able to understand. ... I know what those authors were trying to say, and I support their goals of artistic attribution and integrity, but I believe they made a legal mess of it.

There are better licenses to choose from that accomplish the same goals. Read Rosin's book and see for yourself. Getting it right from the start will prevent all kinds of headache - tracking down and getting the consent for a license change from each contributor to a project three years after the fact may not even be possible.

NN comments
andrew dalke
-

Good pointer, btw. It is 5 years old and I wish it could talk about “Artistic License 2.0”, but as the author points out, licensing is a moving field. I’ll have to read in more detail about what it says of the BSD-derived licenses.

or Cancel
0

chem-bla-ics [ Admin ]

This page lists the schema as Creative Commons ND:

CML Schema is distributed under a Creative Commons license, allowing redistribution but
NOT derivative works. This is to ensure that the schema does not mutate.
NN comments
andrew dalke
-

There are two CC licenses which allow redistribution but don’t allow derivative works: BY-ND and BY-NC-ND. It needs to be more specific about which license it means, since the latter prevents commercial use.

or Cancel
0

chem-bla-ics [ Admin ]

Peter clarified that it is version 2.0 of the Artistic License that applies on the Blue Obelisk mailing list, and that the code should be updated to include that version number.

NN comments
andrew dalke
-

I see a mention of that in private email but it’s incomplete. Got a URL? I don’t see that statement mentioned on the list messages and I would like something more publicly visible. Does that replace entirely the license mentioned in LICENSE.txt? That is, can CDK modify the JUMBO source and claim to be CML compliant? Does the clarification to Artistic License 2.0 also apply to the CML schema, which the LICENSE.txt file says is under a CC license and not the Apache license?

or Cancel

Your answer

You need to join Blue Obelisk eXchange to complete this action, click here to do so.