For Approval: Artistic License 2.0

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Wed Mar 14 07:40:48 UTC 2007

John Cowan wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen scripsit:
>> 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?  
>> doesn't seem to require source distribution for modified versions, only
>> specifying how the source *can* be distributed.
> It is.  The Artistic License is not now, nor has it ever been, a
> copyleft license.

I can see the original license isn't, after re-reading it.  However,
this clause just seems unclear to me.  Maybe "provided your distribution
of the Compiled form complies with Section 4" would be better.

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list