The Artistic license v. 2.0 has been proposed and a copy is at dev.perl.org/rfc/346.html As you will note, clause 5 has been revised. Consequently, I do not see an issue here. I am assuming that once proposed changes to the OSD are presented some of the current license templates may not be in compliance, but this is a forward-looking process.
Rod On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution) > > > Do you mean clause 5 of version 2.0 of the Artistic License? If so, would > > you agree that the proposed change, either your suggestion or Larry's, would > > avoid the problem caused by the current Art. 1 of the OSD or do you think > > there is still a problem with clause 5? > > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php > clause #5 reads: > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of > this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this > Package. You may not charge a fee for this 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. > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
