No
You cannot include GNU GPL v2.0 or later code in a Artistic License 2.0-licensed project and ship the result under Artistic License 2.0. GNU GPL v2.0 or later requires the combined work to be distributed under GNU GPL v2.0 or later (or compatible). If your project is meant to stay Artistic License 2.0-only, do not include GNU GPL v2.0 or later code in it.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| GNU GPL v2.0 or later (GPL-2.0-or-later) | strong-copyleft | No (implicit at most) |
| Artistic License 2.0 (Artistic-2.0) | permissive | No (implicit at most) |
GNU GPL v2.0 or later: GPL-2.0 with explicit upgrade path; users may pick GPL-2.0 or any later GPL.
Artistic License 2.0: Permissive license historically used in the Perl ecosystem.
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.