For Approval: Artistic License 2.0

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Wed Mar 14 07:19:31 UTC 2007

John Cowan wrote:
> Allison Randal scripsit:
>> The Artistic License 2.0 is an updated version of the Artistic License
> Summary:  I think this license is clearly free and open source.  I
> have a few minor criticisms of the wording.

I agree.  The main issue I had was with "(6) You may Distribute a
Modified Version in Compiled form without the Source, provided that you
comply with Section 4 with respect to the Source of the Modified Version."

Is that intended to allow proprietary modifications?  As written, it
doesn't seem to require source distribution for modified versions, only
specifying how the source *can* be distributed.

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list