[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

[Sendu Bala]

Alex Lancaster wrote:
>>>>>> "HL" == Hilmar Lapp  writes:
> 
> HL> 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).
> 
> HL> I fully agree.
> 
>>> A clarification to that effect would be useful.
> 
> HL> Agreed, too. Would you mind changing that language on the wiki,
> HL> since you seem to have a fairly good grasp on the issue?
> 
> 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

Thank you very much for that Alex.


> 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:
[snip]
> For Build.PL this is easy:
> 
> (e.g., license             => 'artistic', should be 
>        license             => 'GPL or Artistic',)

As per the 'license' section of 
http://search.cpan.org/~kwilliams/Module-Build-0.2808/lib/Module/Build/API.pod, 
I've changed it to 'perl', which means Artistic or GPL.


> 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);

I took this approach, using your language for the explanation at the 
top, and including GPL 3.0 at the bottom.


I've made these changes for core (live), run, db and network.

Thanks again for your help and advice.