For Approval: Artistic License 2.0

[Allison Randal]

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.

Yes.

> 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.

Allison