Artistic License v2.0 vs GPL v2. Differences?

views:

answers:

+1 Q:

Artistic License v2.0 vs GPL v2. Differences?

I really don't get the differences between the Artistic License v2.0 and the GPL. They seem very similar.

Also, If I develop something in python under Artistic License 2.0, can I use a GPL library in my code ?

Thanks. I'm going to re-read the licenses, but I doubt I'll get it.

To quote http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL thanks to the relicensing option in section 4(c)(ii).

About using a library: This (as always) depends about how exactly you use the GPL licensed library. If you make it part of your code, which includes linking, you must license your whole code under the GPL.

2009-11-09 08:00:08

The quote does not tell me much. the fact that they are "compatible" carries no meaning on what really is the difference between the two and if I can use a GPL python library from a AL2.0 code.

Stefano Borini 2009-11-09 08:03:35

"Compatible" means that you use GPL licensed code. This is possible because section 4(c)(ii) of the Artistic License 2.0 allows you to relicense code under the GPL. You can change the license from Artistic License 2.0 to the GPL. The opposite is not true. As a result your project must be licensed under the GPL as a whole.

2009-11-09 08:22:37

Ah, ok. So this means that the only way I have to use a GPL library is to throw away my license completely and replace it with GPL, right ?

Stefano Borini 2009-11-09 08:27:08

If you want to use GPL licensesed code: yes.

2009-11-09 08:30:32

+1 A:

The biggest difference is that the GPL requires you to distribute source code if you modify or derive from the code. The Artistic Licence 2.0 does not.

The GPL requires you to ship source code if you make any changes and ship the binary. This is why is it known as a viral license. Companies have been sued to force them to release their source code because of the GPL. See Linksys for one example.

The Artistic License 2.0 does not require code to be redistributed. It is possible to take code licensed in this way and use it in a propreitary solution and not have to ship your modifications. All you would need is to call it something different and give the original author credit. In this way it is much like the BSD license.

Steve Rowe 2009-11-09 08:20:47

Which is exactly what I want from my license. However, since everything that touches GPL must be GPL, if I understand correctly this means that I cannot develop a AL2.0 using a GPL library.

Stefano Borini 2009-11-09 08:25:29

Look for LGPL. That is not contageously viral. If you change the library, you have to redistribute those changes, but if you just link to it, you don't.

Steve Rowe 2009-11-09 08:31:08

I cant'. The library is GPL.

Stefano Borini 2009-11-09 08:32:29

Then you are stuck. That is the downside of the GPL.

Steve Rowe 2009-11-09 08:37:43

I am writing executables wrapping the GPL library, and I will call these executables from my code, having them communicate in json.

Stefano Borini 2009-11-09 12:43:22

Although in principle a company can be sued to force them to release their source, in practice it is probably infeasible to do so; since the GPL is a license, not a contract (as the FSF readily attests), injunctive relief cannot be provided. There are a number of ways for a company to bring itself back into compliance with the GPL license. One way is to release all of the source code. Another is to stop using the GPL'd library.

Robert Harvey 2010-06-12 03:46:20

You ask two questions; one about the differences between two licenses and one about interactions between them.

As far as the first goes, the Artistic license is a very different beast than the GPL. How about you start by saying what you want the license you use to actually allow/disallow others to do with your code?

ysth 2009-11-09 08:21:14

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Artistic License v2.0 vs GPL v2. Differences?

related questions