For Approval: Artistic License 2.0
allison at perl.org
Wed Mar 14 18:47:28 UTC 2007
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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.
But not accurate. It means what it says: you can distribute compiled
forms as long as your distribution (or lack of distribution) of the
source code complies with Section 4.
More information about the License-discuss