Abigail already made most of the revelant points. On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because there seems to be modules which are released under GPL > license the situation is sometimes unmaintainable. I think you'll find that most Perl modules are released under "the same terms as Perl itself", which is the disjunction between the GPL and the Perl Artistic License. This means that when you distribute you can choose to do so under either the GPL _OR_ the Artistic License. Clearly, if you distribute work covered by the GPL that links with your code, your code must be under the GPL as well. However, if you choose the Artistic License you are bound by different rules. I don't really understand the AL but from what I can gather you would be free to distribute propietary software that uses code covered under the AL. If you do find modules that are released under the GPL only, you might consider asking the author to release the next version under the same terms as Perl itself, which is the Perl community standard (except of course, where the module itself links with GPL code or BSD licensed code, etc.) OTOH, people who release things only under the GPL are often ideologically motivated and may not be willing to change. In that case, you'll simply have to deal with it. -dave /*================== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==================*/
