[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "AL" == Alex Lancaster  writes:

[...]

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
AL> bioperl is really effectively dually-licensed under the GPL or
AL> Artistic license).  If so, it would be good if the LICENSE text
AL> and the wiki 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:

 "If you fix bugs, please let us know about them. This is not the GPL
 license so you are not required to submit the code fixes, but in the
 spirit of making a better product we hope you'll contribute back to
 the community any insight or code improvements."

listed here:

 http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Licensing_BioPerl

would still stand, because you can choose the Artistic license, but
you could modify the clause to say:

 "If you fix bugs, please let us know about them. Because Bioperl is
 dual-licensed under the GPL or Artistic licenses, you can choose the
 Artistic license, which means that you are not required to submit the
 code fixes, but in the spirit of making a better product we hope
 you'll contribute back to the community any insight or code
 improvements."