Yes — but the combined work must be released under the more restrictive license.
Artistic License 2.0 code can be combined with GNU General Public License v3.0 code without conflict. The combined work, when distributed, must be licensed under GNU General Public License v3.0. The original Artistic License 2.0 files keep their notice, but the project as a whole is governed by the stronger copyleft.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| Artistic License 2.0 (Artistic-2.0) | permissive | No (implicit at most) |
| GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0) | strong-copyleft | Yes |
Artistic License 2.0: Permissive license historically used in the Perl ecosystem.
GNU General Public License v3.0: GPLv3 adds explicit patent grant + anti-tivoisation; updated copyleft language.
If you found this page because you're trying to figure out whether shipping a particular dependency is safe, the answer above is a starting point — not a substitute for reading the actual licenses or talking to a lawyer when stakes are high.
LicenseHound walks every transitive dependency in your repo, maps each to its SPDX license, and flags pairs like this one in PR comments. The CLI is free; the team dashboard is paid.