For Approval: Artistic License 2.0
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
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.
More information about the License-discuss