[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Wed Sep 5 08:25:21 EDT 2007
On Sep 5, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> 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.
Looks like Sendu has done that. There have been recent troubling
developments re: Artistic License:
but the case hasn't been conclusively decided yet.
More information about the Bioperl-l