in reply to Re: Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software
in thread Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software

That would seem to depend on the definition of 'use'. The way I took it is that
use Foo; my $foo = Foo->new();
is ok since I'm just using the Foo object as is. Where something like
package Foo::Bar; use base("Foo"); sub some_method_in_foo_that_i_override { my $self = shift; # stuff } 1;
would be caught by this clause. Foo::Bar is based upon the code in Foo...not just making use of the Foo object as it was distributed. See the subtle difference?

/\/\averick
perl -l -e "eval pack('h*','072796e6470272f2c5f2c5166756279636b672');"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re3: Using GPL'd Perl Modules in Commercial Software
by belg4mit (Prior) on Feb 18, 2002 at 02:07 UTC
    Yes, I believe this subtelty is one reason why the LGPL exists. However the wording (shared library) makes me think that it is truly the more appropriate license (vs. GPL).

    --
    perl -pe "s/\b;([st])/'\1/mg"