<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Symmetry Lab</title>
    <description>Biophysics of developing embryos</description>
    <link>https://sundar07.github.io//</link>
    <atom:link href="https://sundar07.github.io//feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 13:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 13:28:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Jekyll v3.10.0</generator>
    
      <item>
        <title>Software Licensing</title>
        <description>&lt;p&gt;The following article provides a good overview of licensing and licensing options from the perspective of scientists who also write code:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;Morin, A., Urban, J., and Sliz, P. &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002598&quot;&gt;“A Quick Guide to Software Licensing for the Scientist-Programmer”&lt;/a&gt; PLoS Computational Biology 8(7) (2012): e1002598.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Fundamentally what matters is that there is a clear statement as to what the license is, and that the license is one already vetted and approved by the &lt;a href=&quot;https://opensource.org&quot;&gt;Open Source Initiative&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An important point to consider is that a license is best chosen from the very start of a project - even if for a repository that is not public. Pushing off the decision only makes it more complicated later, because each time a new collaborator starts contributing, they, too, hold copyright and will thus need to be asked for approval once a license is chosen.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h3 id=&quot;popular-open-source-licenses&quot;&gt;Popular open source licenses&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These few licenses are by far the most popular:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0&quot;&gt;GNU General Public License (GPL)&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT&quot;&gt;MIT license&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause&quot;&gt;BSD license&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The GNU-GPL is different from most other open source licenses in that it is “infective”: anyone who distributes a modified version of the code, or anything that includes GPL’ed code, must make their code freely available as well.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h3 id=&quot;creative-works&quot;&gt;Creative works&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Manuals, reports, manuscripts and other creative works are eligible for intellectual property protection and are hence automatically protected by copyright, just as software source code. Creative Commons has prepared a set of licenses using combinations of four basic restrictions:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;Attribution: derived works must give the original author credit for their work.&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;No Derivatives: people may copy the work, but must pass it along unchanged.&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;Share Alike: derivative works must license their work under the same terms as the original.&lt;/li&gt;
  &lt;li&gt;Noncommercial: free use is allowed, but commercial use is not.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Only the Attribution (CC-BY) and Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) licenses are considered “Open”.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
        <link>https://sundar07.github.io//news/2016/04/18/software-icensing/</link>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://sundar07.github.io//news/2016/04/18/software-icensing/</guid>
        
        
        <category>advise</category>
        
      </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>

