Artistic License
Hi,
There is a very long thread about the Artistic License; if it is
a Free Software license according to the DFSG or not. Whatever the
outcome of that discussion I think that it is clear that the Artictic
License is indeed a very vague license. Which seems to be why the
discussion is so long. (Even though I do indeed believe that the license
was made in the same spirit as the DFSG when Larry Wall wrote it.)
I looked on my system and could not find any packages that were
actually licensed under only the Artistic License. All packages that
are licensed under the Artistic License are (just as perl) licensed
under both the Artistic and the GPL. This seems to suggest that if
there are packages (or proposals for packages) under only the Artistic
License that it would be a good idea/consistent to either ask the
author to relicense under the Clarified Artistic License or dual
license with the GPL.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Stuff to read:
<http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore
Reply to: