Subject: Re: Uses of the Artistic License?
From: "Ben Tilly" <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:45:02 -0800

On 1/16/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
> Ben Tilly wrote:
> > Another project that comes to mind is Ruby.
> >
>
> It seems they're using a dual-license of the "Ruby License"
> (http://ruby.mirror.easynet.be/en/LICENSE.txt) and the GPL.  The Ruby
> license is clearly based on some version of the Artistic License, though
>  it is quite different from the OSI-approved version; I couldn't say
> more than that.

Perl does the same dual licensing trick.  However some prominent
groups in the Perl community do things that are not allowed under the
GPL.  (Activestate comes to mind.)  Which is why I raised questions
about "a lot of commercial uses of Perl code" rather than "all uses".

> > But, stupid question, would it be useful to have some of the other
> > organizations that could be affected to react to this?  A precedent
> > saying that the Artistic License is unenforcible would be disasterous
> > for Perl (it would disallow a lot of commercial uses of Perl code),
> > and I'm sure I could locate the right people to get an "official Perl
> > response" to this situation.
>
> Hopefully, this could include a friend of the court filing.

That is what I was thinking.  But it is his case, not mine, so I
wanted to be sure that I knew what was really wanted before I began
asking people to be useful.

Cheers,
Ben