[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: License of Class::Struct

From: Elaine -HFB- Ashton
Subject: Re: License of Class::Struct
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:41:53 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

Akim Demaille address@hidden quoth:
*>Aaaaaarg!  Does it mean comp.lang.perl is really dead and should not
*>exist?  I can see it from here, but its sole content is the news I
*>sent a week ago :)

Who am I to say what should exist? :) I think it was back in 1996-7 that
comp.lang.perl was if it technically exists, you
should use the .* groups instead as you'll even see traffic in those.

*>Would it be possible that someone include a few words about this in
*>Class::Struct?  I would feel much more comfortable with that.
*>In fact, I'm a bit worried by your words: you said

Well, the module itself will state the exception. An example would be the
JPL module which is copyrighted by O'Reilly and some of the documentation
has a different license. In 99% of the cases, if it doesn't state in the
pod or somewhere in the module that it has a different license than Perl
itself, you are free to use it as such. If you want to be really cautious
with CPAN modules you can always write the author/maintainer, but usually,
unless you are doing something clearly out of bounds, authors love to have
their work included and used in other projects. We aren't lawyers, but if
you use it and give credit where credit is due, etc., and follow the
general principles, I see no conflict with the license.

*>I would like to have read
*>        _Unless stated otherwise_, the Perl distribution is covered by
*>        both the Artistic License or the GPL

:) This would be more accurate, yes.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]