| osdir.com mailing list archive F.A.Q. -since 2001! |
|
|
|
Subject: Re: For Approval: Artistic License 2.0 - msg#00055List: licenses.open-source.generalby Date: Prev Next Date Index by Thread: Prev Next Thread Index
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. You can distribute your hacked proprietary version of Perl in binary form only provided you don't call it "Perl" and provided your installation does not screw up an existing or future installation of Perl. -- John Cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx http://ccil.org/~cowan I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo
Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date:Re: For Approval: Artistic License 2.0John Cowan wrote: > Allison Randal scripsit: > >> The Artistic License 2.0 is an updated version of the Artistic License > > Summary: I think this license is clearly free and open source. I > have a few minor criticisms of the wording. 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? As written, it doesn't seem to require source distribution for modified versions, only specifying how the source *can* be distributed. Matthew Flaschen Next Message by Date:Re: For Approval: Artistic License 2.0John 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 Previous Message by Thread:Re: For Approval: Artistic License 2.0John Cowan wrote: > Allison Randal scripsit: > >> The Artistic License 2.0 is an updated version of the Artistic License > > Summary: I think this license is clearly free and open source. I > have a few minor criticisms of the wording. 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? As written, it doesn't seem to require source distribution for modified versions, only specifying how the source *can* be distributed. Matthew Flaschen Next Message by Thread:Re: For Approval: Artistic License 2.0John 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
blog comments powered by Disqus
|
|
