[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

[Chris Fields]

On Sep 5, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Alex Lancaster wrote:
...
>
> OK, I've updated the wiki in two places:
>
> http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Licensing_BioPerl
>
> http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/ 
> FAQ#What_are_the_license_terms_for_BioPerl.3F
>
> 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
> license:
>
> http://code.open-bio.org/cgi/viewcvs.cgi/bioperl-live/LICENSE? 
> rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
>
> http://code.open-bio.org/cgi/viewcvs.cgi/bioperl-live/Build.PL? 
> rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex

Looks like Sendu has done that.  There have been recent troubling  
developments re: Artistic License:

http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/26/1541205&from=rss

but the case hasn't been conclusively decided yet.

chris