In this message, I go section-by-section of the original Artistic license,
and discuss my interpretation of the intent of the license, and discuss how
the "Artistic License, Version 2.0" attempts to address that spirit. From
here on, I refer to the original Artistic License, used as part of Perl5's
license, as "Original AL", and refer to the new version as "Version 2.0".
Original AL Definitions section:
In this section, most of the definitions were adequate. Version 2.0 does
define Copyright Holder and "You" a bit more clearly.
The most notable change is that Version 2.0 renames "Reasonable Copying Fee"
to "Distribution Fee", and clarifies its meaning so that there are no
confusions as outlined in RFC 211. Likewise, "Freely Available" is
clarified.
Original AL Section 1:
I believe that the intent here is to make it as easy as possible for people
to share verbatim copies of the Package at will. So, section (2) of Version
2.0 basically repeats what the Original AL says in Section 1, and expands it
a bit to make it more clear.
Original AL Section 2:
I believe that the idea here is that if someone gets an official patch for
the Package before the new full version is released, they should be able to
apply it and treat the Package as if it were the Standard Version.
This clause appears in Version 2.0 in Section (3), but it clarifies that the
package must be made available from one of the Copyright Holders, so that it
is sure to be an official patch.
Original AL Section 3:
I believe the idea here is the core of what makes the Artistic License
unique. As I read it, the goal appears to be to ensure that either (a)
changes are available to the world freely, or (b) make sure that no one
mistakes the modified version for the Standard Version.
Section (4) in Version 2.0 attempts to address this issue in much the same
way. I removed the Original AL's 3.d, since Version 2.0 covers in the
Preamble (which is a better place to handle the issue, since it's true
regardless of whether or not the license states it, and there's no need to
crowd the license with it.)
Version 2.0 moves Section 3.b. of the Original AL to a separate section,
(1). Private modifications are really a different issue than distribution,
and thus it makes sense to separate this out.
In Version 2.0, (4b) reworks the Original AL's 3.c. (4b) extended 3.c. a
bit to be more clear what would need to be done in source code to make the
required things happen correctly.
Finally, Version 2.0 splits 3.a from the Original AL into two sections, (4a)
and (4c). (4a) basically covers the issue of making the changes available
back to the developers. (4c) is made to make freely available a little less
specific than 3.a in the Original AL did. Methods of distribution change,
and it's probably adequate simply to make sure the modifications are freely
redistributable.
Original AL Section 4:
4.a in the Original AL basically maps to (5) in Version 2.0. Clarification
is added that the distribute need not ensure that the instructions are
correct forever. Reasons for that are stated in my other post addressing
the same issue in Ben's AL.
4.b maps to (6a) pretty directly, with the added note that they may follow
any of the source distribution instructions in (4), which seems like a
reasonable thing to allow, and removes some of the confusions in the AL
described in RFC 211.
4.c maps to (6b), with a few clarifications to ensure a name and binary
change (i.e., make perl into oraperl :).
Original AL Section 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:
I believe these are the most confusing sections of the Original AL. I have
lumped them together, because they seem to try to do group of things all
together. I have tried to separate out the various items and address
them. I believe that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 try to:
(a) make sure that license fees aren't charged.
(b) allow redistributors to aggregate the Package with other programs
without hindrance.
(c) Allow embedding of the Package inside bigger things without any
restrictions.
(d) Try to ensure that the name of the Copyright Holders aren't used to
endorse some product.
(e) Try to ensure that the name of the Package isn't used to endorse some
product.
(f) make sure that programs written *in* Perl fall under the license.
(g) make sure that extensions that don't change the language aren't
hindered by the license.
(h) allow companies to make binaries that run Perl programs with an
embedded Perl language without restriction.
Version 2.0 doesn't address points (d) and (e), because they are not
something one can control with a copyright license. Thus, such statements
only give that false sense of security. I A trademark on "Perl" can solve
(e), and libel law can deal with (d).
Version 2.0 addresses point (a) in the definition of Freely Available and
Distribution Fee themselves, and it is spelled out clearly in (7).
Version 2.0 addresses point (b) in (7).
Version 2.0 addresses points (c) and (h) in (8).
Version 2.0 addresses points (f) and (g) in (9).
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
