When comparing Artistic License 1.0 vs GPLv2, the Slant community recommends GPLv2 for most people. In the question“What are the best open-source licenses?” GPLv2 is ranked 7th while Artistic License 1.0 is ranked 14th. The most important reason people chose GPLv2 is:
Ensures that the software and its derivatives remain licensed under the same license to keep the software free and open source.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Protects the author
The author of the software avoids any risk for how the software may be used by others.
Pro Powerful and Strong
It requires change of files, so if you are making a copy of any software licensed with this license, you will have to PROVE that it is not the original software under another name. You are permitted to use the Standard Version and create and use Modified Versions for any purpose without restriction, provided that you do not Distribute the Modified Version.
Pro Ensures that derivitave works are also protected by copyleft
Ensures that the software and its derivatives remain licensed under the same license to keep the software free and open source.
Pro Guarantees that all changes are given back
Pro Ensures that the software does not become proprietary
Cons
Con Includes poor wording
Con Cannot be linked with other licenses
Software licensed under the GNU GPLv2 is incompatible with all other licenses, with the exception of GPLv3 in most cases. This means that code from a GPLv2 program cannot be combined with code under another license in the same program.
Con Long and complicated
The license is very long and complicated, making it hard to read and comprehend. However, there is a simplified version available here.