Talk:Artistic License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Software vs. Open Source[edit]

The Artistic License is not considered a Free Software license by FSF [1], although the derived Python license is free software. It's a recognized Open Source license. --suruena 17:53, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Will perl6 be artistic-2.0?[edit]

As far as I can tell, Perl 6 will be released under the GPL and the Artistic 2.0, but can someone confirm? Here's the artistic 2.0 with Rfc commentary: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html Thanks. Gronky 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Is giving me that impression. ―Linux|erist 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yeah but what are the implications of software relased under AL?[edit]

This article tells me that there exists an AL and that most perl software is dual licensed under AL and GPL, and that there is some controversey about whether or not AL is OpenSource, but it doesn't tell me much about the license, what are its limitations or advantages, and what was Larry's intent in writing it? --203.6.205.131 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would appreciate the article mentioning what the license actually is.--DustWolf (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I third this --JosephSzymborski (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing on 22 October 2015, although I have no proficiency whatsoever to explain the license contents, I think I can contribute to this talk by providing an external link to the 2.0 license: http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0 - a point that I find particularly difficult to understand is the section named "Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source". Maybe future Talk contributors could help clarify these contents. (end note: As I am an inexperienced user of this platform, if I inadvertently wrote something unacceptable among the above-lying lines I humbly beg your pardon and obviously allow anybody to make the necessary corrections)

Source for info on problems[edit]

This email may contain some referenceable information about the problems with v1 of the AL: http://www.dclug.org.uk/archive/2007/08/msg00599.html

--Gronky (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly phrased?[edit]

The Artistic License refers most commonly to the original Artistic License (version 1.0)...

This seems to be saying "Artistic License" most commonly refers to the license referenced in this article rather than referring to the artistic concept "artistic license". That seems unlikely, and there's no citation, so it should probably be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.171.225 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant there was that we now have the Artistic License 1.0 and the Artistic License 2.0 (2006) (as well as the Clarified Artistic License), but when people speak of "the Artistic License" they generally mean version 1.0. I don't have a cite for this, however, though it seems obvious to me. Rfontana (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.236.108 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What is the Artistic License?[edit]

Nowhere in this article does it say what an artistic license actually is. What makes it different from other licenses of this type? Lucifer-oxy (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still there is no insight as to what this license entails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.176.202 (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artistic License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artistic License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artistic License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artistic_License&oldid=1207051753"