[sf-lug] Free software talk
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Dec 18 15:39:28 PST 2008
Quoting Steve M Bibayoff (bibayoff at gmail.com):
> Then please explain this from the License:
> "5. [...]You may not charge a fee for this Package itself."
Yr. wish is my command.
1. Artistic License has _no such clause_. Check for yourself:
2. Oh, you are undoubtedly talking about the obsolete, universally
deprecated, legally catastrophic version _1.0_ licence text. The reason
the quoted sentence lifted from the obsolete, let's-try-to-forget-that-
Larry-Wall-can't-write-licences-for-sh** version does _not_, in real-world
effect, stand in the way of selling the code for any desired price, is
the sentence-after-next in section 5:
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.
So, put the hypothetical code snippet that some idiot has left under
Artistic License 1.0 inside a tiny wrapper with a separate brand identity
and, voila, you can charge anything you want.
Fortunately, almost the sole repository of Artistic License usage is the
Perl community (usually dual-licensed with GPL), and rare indeed is the
Perlmonger who hasn't heeded the standard "For ghod's sake don't use AL
> Yes, the Artistic License is a really bad license. Yes, people sell
> software licensed under it. And AFAIK, nobody has ever been accused of
> violating the license by very clearly selling software that is
> licensed under the Artistic License. But, imho, section 5 is clear
> about NOT selling the software.
Too bad you didn't read the _entire_ paragraph.
 I refer to the Jacobsen decision (Jacobsen v. Katzer). If Jacobsen
had heeded prominent warnings to avoid AL 1.0, he'd have saved himself a
costly court battle.
More information about the sf-lug