I've found where I picked up this idea from. On the Perl Foundation pages there is a copy of Artistic License 2.0 together with notes.
I interpret Section 8 of Artistic 2.0 as meaning you can't do 'mypacked.exe anyoldscript.pl' But its all moot anyway as we are talking perl5 and Artistic 1.0. Once again - sorry for FUD!! Mark Mark Dootson wrote: > 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 > >
