Hi Seindal, I know they are both open source, but what I want to do is release a script under a GPL type of license. From reading the Artistic License it seems like it is more of a BSD style.
What I want to do is prevent it from being sucked into a commercial product, I want all child development to be as freely available as the script it self.
Best I can determine, the Artistic License only apply to the Perl source, and it is up to the author of a script to determine the license on his work regardless of the Perl source license.
From the Artistic License:
6. The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as output from the programs of this Package do not automatically fall under the copyright of this Package, but belong to whomever generated them, and may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this Package.
7. C or perl subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Package shall not be considered part of this Package.
The above seems to support my idea unless I am missing something.
As seindal already pointed out there are no conflicts. See [gnu.org...]
However, this does not need to concern you in any way. Your script is just data to the Perl interpreter and its license cannot impose any limits on the data you process. You can release your Perl script under any license you want to.
If you use any GPL'ed modules in your script, then that script needs to be released in a GPL-compatible way.