Editing Artistic License (section)

=== Artistic License 1.0 ===
The original Artistic License was written by [[Larry Wall]]. The name of the license is a reference to the concept of [[artistic license]].

Whether or not the original Artistic License is a [[free software license]] is largely unsettled. The [[Free Software Foundation]] explicitly called the original Artistic License a non-free license,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html |title=Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation |publisher=Free Software Foundation |access-date=2013-01-27|quote=...&nbsp;it permits software released under the original Artistic License to be included, even though that's a nonfree license.}}</ref> criticizing it as being "too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense |title=Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) |publisher=Fsf.org |access-date=2010-08-07| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100724023833/https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html| archive-date= 24 July 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref> The FSF recommended that the license not be used on its own, but approved the common AL/GPL [[dual-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 the '''Clarified Artistic License''' and was approved by the FSF. It is used by the [[Paros Proxy]], the [[Dataflow programming|JavaFBP toolkit]] and [[NcFTP]].

The terms of the Artistic License 1.0 were at issue in ''[[Jacobsen v. Katzer]]'' in the initial 2009 ruling by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] declared that [[FOSS]]-like licenses could only be enforced through [[contract law]] rather than through [[copyright law]], in contexts where contract damages would be difficult to establish.<ref>[http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-open-source-legal-decision-jacobsen.html New Open Source Legal Decision: Jacobsen & Katzer and How Model Train Software Will Have an Important Effect on Open Source Licensing], Radcliffe, Mark (Law & Life: Silicon Valley) (2007-08-22)</ref>  On appeal, a [[United States court of appeals|federal appellate court]] "determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions".<ref>[http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1001.pdf Opinion, Jacobsen v. Katzer] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110304135243/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1001.pdf |date=2011-03-04 }}, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2008-08-13)</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20091534609cbfsupp2d92511455|title=Robert JACOBSEN, Plaintiff, v. Matthew KATZER and Kamind Associates, Inc., Defendants.|last=United States District Court, N.D. California.|date=2009-01-05|access-date=2019-07-11}}</ref>  However, this left undisturbed the finding that a free and open-source license nonetheless has economic value.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Menon|first=Yamini|date=Spring 2011|title=Jacobsen Revisted: Conditions and the Future of Open-Source Software Licenses|url=http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1054/6WJLTA311.pdf?sequence=3|journal=Washington Journal of Law, Technology and Arts|volume=6|issue=4|pages=311–357}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert_jacobsen_katzer.htm|title=WSGR ALERT: Settlement Reached in Important Open Source Copyright Infringement Case|last=WSGR ALERT|date=2010-02-23|access-date=2019-07-11}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/12602/1/McDonagh%20-%20FOSS.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/12602/1/McDonagh%20-%20FOSS.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=McDonagh, L. (2013). Copyright, Contract and FOSS. In: N. Shemtov & I. Walden (Eds.), Free and Open Source Software. (pp. 69-108). OUP Oxford. ISBN 9780199680498|access-date=2019-07-11}}</ref>