| Author | The Perl Foundation |
|---|---|
| Latest version | 2.0 |
| Publisher | The Perl Foundation |
| Published | ? |
| SPDX identifier | Artistic-1.0 Artistic-1.0-cl8 Artistic-1.0-Perl Artistic-2.0 ClArtistic |
| Debian FSG compatible | Yes[1] |
| FSFapproved | 1.0 No (Yes, for Clarified Artistic License), 2.0 Yes |
| OSIapproved | Yes (both) |
| GPL compatible | 1.0 No (Yes, for Clarified Artistic License), 2.0 Yes |
| Copyleft | No[2] |
| Linking from code with a different license | Yes |
| Website | www |
TheArtistic License is anopen-source license used for certainfree and open-source software packages, most notably the standard implementation of thePerl programming language and mostCPAN modules, which aredual-licensed under the Artistic License and theGNU General Public License (GPL).
The original Artistic License was written byLarry Wall. The name of the license is a reference to the concept ofartistic license.
Whether or not the original Artistic License is afree software license is largely unsettled. TheFree Software Foundation explicitly called the original Artistic License a non-free license,[3] criticizing it as being "too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear".[4] The FSF recommended that the license not be used on its own, but approved the common AL/GPLdual-licensing approach for Perl projects.
In response to this,Bradley Kuhn, who later worked for the Free Software Foundation, made a minimal redraft to clarify the ambiguous passages. This was released as theClarified Artistic License and was approved by the FSF. It is used by theParos Proxy, theJavaFBP toolkit andNcFTP.
The terms of the Artistic License 1.0 were at issue inJacobsen v. Katzer in the initial 2009 ruling by theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California declared thatFOSS-like licenses could only be enforced throughcontract law rather than throughcopyright law, in contexts where contract damages would be difficult to establish.[5] On appeal, afederal appellate court "determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions".[6] The case was remanded to the District Court, which did not apply the superior court's criteria on the grounds that, in the interim, the governing Supreme Court precedent applicable to the case had changed.[7] However, this left undisturbed the finding that a free and open-source license nonetheless has economic value.[8][9] Jacobsen ultimately prevailed in 2010, and the Case established a new standard making terms and conditions under Artistic License 1.0 enforceable through copyright statutes and relevant precedents.[10]
In response to theRequest for Comments (RFC) process for improving the licensing position forRaku, Kuhn's draft was extensively rewritten byRoberta Cairney andAllison Randal for readability and legal clarity, with input from the Perl community. This resulted in theArtistic License 2.0, which has been approved as both afree software[11] andopen source[12] license.
The Artistic license 2.0 is also notable for its excellentlicense compatibility with other FOSS licenses due to arelicensing clause, a property other licenses like the GPL lack.[13]
You may Distribute your Modified Version as Source (either gratis or for a Distributor Fee, and with or without a Compiled form of the Modified Version) [...] provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
[...](c) allow anyone who receives a copy of the Modified Version to make the Source form of the Modified Version available to others under
(i) the Original License or
(ii)a license that permits the licensee to freely copy, modify and redistribute the Modified Version using the same licensing terms that apply to the copy that the licensee received, and requires that the Source form of the Modified Version, and of any works derived from it, be made freely available in that license fees are prohibited but Distributor Fees are allowed.
It has been adopted by some of theRaku implementations, theMojolicious framework andnpm. It is also used by theSNEeSeemulator, which was formerly licensed under the Clarified Artistic License.
TheOSI recommends that all developers and projects licensing their products with the Artistic License adopt Artistic License 2.0.[14]
... it permits software released under the original Artistic License to be included, even though that's a nonfree license.
| General | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Software packages | |||
| Community | |||
| Organisations | |||
| Licenses |
| ||
| Challenges | |||
| Related topics | |||
