[Bioperl-l] Clarifying license of bioperl

[Alex Lancaster]

>>>>> "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