in reply to The Perl 5 Programmer's Reference

Did the authors pay attention to the copyrights on the perldoc documentation? From perltoc in the 5.005_03 version:
Bundled Distributions When included as part of the Standard Version of Perl, or as part of its complete documentation whether printed or otherwise, this work may be distributed only under the terms of Perl's Artistic License. Any distribution of this file or derivatives thereof outside of that package require that special arrangements be made with copyright holder. Irrespective of its distribution, all code examples in these files are hereby placed into the public domain. You are permitted and encouraged to use this code in your own programs for fun or for profit as you see fit. A simple comment in the code giving credit would be courteous but is not required.
So feel free to borrow from the code examples in the documentation, but you are not free to just slap together the documentation, edit the content lightly, and call it a book.

(Incidentally this site would be fine since it is attempting to display the complete documentation.)

(Yes, I know there is irony in Tom Christiansen caring about this, but let's not talk about that in public.)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE (tilly) 1: The Perl 5 Programmer's Reference
by AgentM (Curate) on Oct 09, 2000 at 20:56 UTC

      I note, for the record, that the Artistic License says "or derivatives thereof"

      It's a grey area here; I think it's pretty clear that if I went through your code and just changed the variable names (say, something as simple as switching the cases) I haven't really produced anything new. While there's a little of the author's own work in a paraphrase of a natural language document, that's still probably close enough to count as a "derivative work."

      Philosophy can be made out of anything -- or less