Is license dennying redstribution open source?

[Ben Tilly]

On Dec 19, 2007 4:03 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Eugene Wee wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I thought that part was obvious:
> >
> > 1. Free Redistribution
> >
> > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
> > programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
> > royalty or other fee for such sale.
> >
> >
> > Clearly, "you cannot provide the software to anybody else!" contradicts
> > "this does not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> > software (etc)".
>
> Technically, it can forbid redistributing the licensed software /alone/.
>  But this isn't a real issue, since you can always add a hello world
> program, then redistribute.  No major license requires this, though.

My understanding of the wording for part 1 was carefully designed so
that Perl's Artistic License did not violate it.  Here is the section
in question of that license, with *'s added to show the tricky bit.:

     You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
   Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
   Package. ***You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
   you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
   commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
   software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package
   as a product of your own.*** You may embed this Package's interpreter
   within an executable of yours (by linking); this shall be construed as
   a mere form of aggregation, provided that the complete Standard
   Version of the interpreter is so embedded.

Cheers,
Ben