I know of some people who are keen to release code, but don't want to be obligated into a BSD license and so can't post it to <a href="http://bio.scipy.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
bio.scipy.org</a>. <br><br>The true potential of this type of software is only realised when it is in the hands of command line illiterate biologists. This is perhaps where 'our' audience differs from other branches of the
sciences. The primary market are not coders, they are biologists. For
them an easy interface is the key ingredient.<br><br>
The potential commercial gain from wrapping open source software in a user friendly interface should not be allowed to distort efforts away from providing these tools to the widest possible audience. Sage (<a href="http://www.sagemath.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.sagemath.org</a>) is trying to accomplish for mathematical software in python and are using GPL. User interface implementation is dull to code and and so doesn't attract programmers who are doing it for the love of the coding, but it is what will allow widespread use of the code. There is still plenty of commercial oppurtunity for customisation and consultancy.
<br><br>Enthought, (<a href="http://www.enthought.com/">http://www.enthought.com/</a>) who host the SciPy sites, make their money from providing customised easy interfaces to open source python based scientific software. Many of the tools they integrate are GPLed and they have released their enthought tool set under open source licenses and contribute heavily to open source projects. This is a very good thing. It would be a shame if a similar enterprise for biological python were able to keep their code to themselves while relying on the contributions of a large number of true open source developers to produce the tools they build on.
<br><br>This is why I personally don't like the 'only BSD' rule.<br><br>-Peter<br><br>