http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Permítaseme pegar lo que dice FSF al respecto de (Original) Artistic License ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "(Original) Artistic License We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear. We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl. The problems are matters of wording, not substance. There is a revised version of the Artistic License (dubbed "Artistic License 2.0") which is a free software license, and even compatible with the GNU GPL. This license is being considered for use in Perl 6. If you are thinking of releasing a program under the Artistic License, please do investigate other GPL-compatible, Free Software licensing options listed here first. The Artistic License 2.0 is currently in a draft phase with The Perl Foundation. FSF is in active negotations with the Perl Foundation regarding the license, and we look forward to a result which will benefit all users." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bien, entonces si entiendo bien el asunto pasa más que nada por que los autores de d4x y razor apliquen la nueva licencia 2.0 cuando esté disponible. El caso no es "tan" grave como pensaba, siendo que "The problems are matters of wording, not substance." los problemas son asuntos de formas de redacción, no de la esencia misma de la licencia. -- Marcos Guglielmetti *Desempleado, busco empleo estable.* http://www.pc-musica.com.ar/Curriculum-Marcos-Guglielmetti.html fecha: vie sep 23 23:55:03 CEST 2005 ___________________________________________________________ 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo http://correo.yahoo.com.ar