[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

Kevin Brown Kevin.M.Brown at asu.edu
Fri Aug 17 15:11:40 UTC 2007

> AL> I assume that the intent of the bioperl authors is to 
> license with 
> AL> the same terms as Perl's *current* license (which would 
> mean bioperl 
> AL> is really effectively dually-licensed under the GPL or Artistic 
> AL> license).  If so, it would be good if the LICENSE text 
> and the wiki 
> AL> were updated to reflect this.
> Also note that since Perl's license is a dual-license "GPL or 
> Artistic" then people aren't required to submit their 
> modifications back to the bioperl distribution because they 
> can choose to follow the Artistic (rather than the GPL) 
> license which doesn't require modifications to be submitted 
> back.  This means the point:

You aren't required to submit patches even under the GPL.  If I make
changes and don't distribute them then I have no requirement to reveal
my changes to the bioperl source code.  Also the GPL does not require
that the code be made freely available to all, just that users of GPL'd
software can request the source from the vendor/distributor and should
not find lots of little hoops to jump through to get it.  You can even
charge to get access if that charge is to cover the cost of the expense
to get it (such as the cost of a cd + mail delivery charge).

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list