[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

[Chris Fields]

On Aug 18, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

>
> 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).
>
> I fully agree.
>
>>   A clarification to that effect would be useful.
>
> Agreed, too. Would you mind changing that language on the wiki, since
> you seem to have a fairly good grasp on the issue?
>
> 	-hilmar

Looks like the modules mostly state 'You may distribute this module  
under the same terms as perl itself', but there are likely a few  
which need to be changed.  Might be worth running a quick code audit  
to see what's present.

chris