[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Fri Aug 17 16:07:47 UTC 2007

On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Alex Lancaster wrote:

>>>>>> "KB" == Kevin Brown  writes:
> [...]
>>> 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:
> KB> You aren't required to submit patches even under the GPL.  If I
> KB> make changes and don't distribute them then I have no requirement
> KB> to reveal my changes to the bioperl source code.  Also the GPL
> KB> does not require that the code be made freely available to all,
> KB> just that users of GPL'd software can request the source from the
> KB> vendor/distributor and should not find lots of little hoops to
> KB> jump through to get it.  You can even charge to get access if that
> KB> charge is to cover the cost of the expense to get it (such as the
> KB> cost of a cd + mail delivery charge).
> Sure, I was just pointing out that you can avoid even these things if
> you choose the Artistic license.  I have no problem with the GPL, but
> some people do.  The other possibility (if the current Perl "GPL or
> Artistic" is not a possibility) is simply upgrading to the "Artistic
> 2.0" license adopted by the Perl Foundation for Perl 6 and later (I
> think?):
> http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0
> it's a GPL-compatible free software license.
> Alex

Switching to Artistic 2.0 is probably the best way to go.  We'll need  
a more involved discussion but I don't think there'll be too many  
objections.  You mention GPL-compatibility; is that for v2 and v3?


More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list