Hi, I stand corrected then. I always thought 'mypacked.exe anyoldscript.pl' would NOT be OK.
Sorry for creating FUD!! Mark Steffen Mueller wrote: > Mark Dootson schrieb: >> Duncan Murdoch wrote: >> >>> 2. Can you run a script that's not in the .par file, but look in >>> there for any modules it depends on? For example, I'd like to do >>> something like the line above even though subdir/baz.pl was not in >>> foo.par. >> >> It is probably possible but it is a generally accepted interpretation >> of the Perl License that you may not create executables with a >> packager (PAR, PerlApp etc) that can run arbitrary external perl >> scripts on systems without a Perl installed. > > I think what Duncan was intending to do was something like > > perl foo.pl > > with foo.pl loading modules from some.par. > >> So, having an executable mypacked.exe >> >> that can do >> >> mypacked.exe anyoldscript.pl >> >> on a system without Perl installed, is at the very least in a grey >> area as far as the Perl License is concerned. >> >> I only post this to flag up a potential issue that you may not have >> considered. I may be completely wrong and "mypacked.exe >> anyoldscript.pl" might be fine. I just always understood that you >> could not do this and should distribute Perl instead. > > I am not aware that this (i.e. your scenario, not the one I point to > above!) is violating perl's license. In fact, I am somewhat confident > that it's fine. I suppose only Larry, the perl5-porters or lawyers can > answer this question definitely, though. > > Steffen
