Simplified Artistic License

David Johnson david at
Fri Oct 4 02:44:39 UTC 2002

On Thursday 03 October 2002 10:02 am, Robert Samuel White wrote:

> - If the source code was modified in any way, each file that was
> modified must include the statement "this file was modified from its
> original version" along with appropriate comments indicating how and why
> the file was modified; these comments should be placed directly
> underneath the first comment section of each file.

Possibly a slight problem here. Since this license is not "copyleft", the 
apparent intent of this clause could be a big no-op.

> - You may not charge any fees for the Package itself.  However, you may
> distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial)
> programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution
> provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your
> own.

This has been commented on before, but I'm bringing it up again. The "no fees" 
clause in the AL is a no-op, is because it allows charging of fees for 
distribution and media. Your license does not. In the real world we live in, 
charging for the package itself is equivalent to charging a license fee, so 
it's not a huge deal that the AL denies it. But without the ability to charge 
for media or distribution services, your clause does indeed violate the OSD 
because it becomes impossible to sell the software without first aggregating 
it with other software. (I'm hoping my wording makes sense to others besides 

David Johnson
pgp public key on website
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list