Ahhh, the Artistic license, yeah, you can distribute binaries without source if you change-names-docs-trademarks... and document where to get the original source

http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0

3.c You may modify ... provided ... rename ... manual ... differences from original

4.c You may distribute ... provided ... non-standard names ... document where get original

http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0

Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions without the Source

(5) You may Distribute ... provided document where get original

(6) You may Distribute ... provided give source to original owner / buyers on demand

Distribute means buy/sell/whatever

Naturally I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be lawyer and this isn't legal advice and my sit-upon is itchy :)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License; the original version is not an FSF-recognized free software license, there are some ambiguities which are corrected in the Clarified Artistic License and the Artistic License 2.0.

ysth,

I'm want to make RPerl available under the same terms as Perl itself so that RPerl and Perl source code can be mixed without worrying about what license applies to what. Does that make sense?

Also, I want to write a 1 or 2 sentence explanation of how the RPerl license affects end-users, as I have already attempted to do in the RPerl FAQ. Can you please give me guidance on what you think would be accurate wording?

Thanks!

Perling,
~ Will

Also, it seems like there is some disagreement about whether a "Perl" project (like RPerl) should be licensed under Artistic v1 or Artistic v2. Can you give me input on that please?

If you are free to choose, that is, if you are not dependent on code that can't be relicensed, absolutely go for v2.
--
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |