[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

Alex Lancaster alexl at users.sourceforge.net
Wed Sep 5 06:08:14 EDT 2007

>>>>> "HL" == Hilmar Lapp  writes:

HL> On Aug 18, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Alex Lancaster wrote:

> I imagine the intent of the bioperl
>> contributors is that it should be under the same terms as Perl,
>> whatever that happens to be (which just happens to be GPL or
>> Artistic, which is fine).

HL> I fully agree.

>> A clarification to that effect would be useful.

HL> Agreed, too. Would you mind changing that language on the wiki,
HL> since you seem to have a fairly good grasp on the issue?

OK, I've updated the wiki in two places:



It would also be nice if the LICENSE and Build.PL files in CVS (so it
finds its way into the next release) were also updated to reflect the
dual-licensed status, currently they only mention the Artistic



For Build.PL this is easy:

(e.g., license             => 'artistic', should be 
       license             => 'GPL or Artistic',)

Possible solutions for the LICENSE file include:

1) The GPL could be added to LICENSE file at the end (with a note at
   the top to indicate that GPL is also included);

2) LICENSE could be moved to LICENSE.Artistic and another file
   "LICENSE.GPL" added with the GPL (version 2+) conditions, and the
   contents of LICENSE would include a note about each license.

I don't have access to the bioperl CVS repository, so I can't make the
changes myself).  This would also apply to the Build.PL (and LICENSE
files if they are present) in bioperl-run and other modules.


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list