Formal Request for Approval: Simplified Artistic License

David Johnson david at
Mon Oct 28 07:48:18 UTC 2002

>From my perspective, this license meets the Open Source Definition. I do have 
some minor comments.

> - Redistributions of the Package in source form must retain the original
> copyright notices and associated comments that are included at the
> beginning of each source file, denoted as an attribution notice, as
> furnished by the Copyright Holder, both in the Package itself and in any
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution of
> the Package in source form.

Does this mean that I must copy the attribution notice from the source code 
into the documentation, if it isn't already there? This clause could stand a 
bit of simplification. (but then again, I am not a lawyer, so I like simple 

> - The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as
> output from the programs of this Package do not automatically fall under
> the copyright of this Package, but belong to whoever generated them, and
> may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this Package.

I would lose the word "automatically". I don't think it adds anything, but may 
cause confusion over how such files might fall under the copyright.

> - Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
> acknowledgment:
>    "This product includes <<PRODUCT_NAME>>, freely available from

Where is this acknowledgement placed? If it's in the source code and 
documentation of the Package, there is no problem. If it must be placed 
outside of the package, then you run into the old advertisement clause that 
BSD had so much problem with.

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list