[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl
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