On 5/7/2007 2:00 PM, 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.
No, I did ask about the case Mark is discussing, but have since decided
that we won't need to do that. It's easy enough for us to package all
the scripts into the same .par.
Duncan Murdoch
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
