For Approval: Artistic License 2.0

[Matthew Flaschen]

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