Re: Of third party products, code reviews and module installation...(discussion)

This ties in nicely with something on /. today: while the GPL is good, it *is* viral in the sence that anything that uses a GPL component must be GPL itself.

Not wanting to get into a agrument over GPL vs other open source licenses, there's probably good reason to stick to handmade code over CPAN offerings if the CPAN module has a license that you cannot live with. Given that you said this particular instance was commercial, it could *possibly* be that the CPAN modules of interest were not usable without removing the commercializability of the software. (Of course, dollars to donuts that in this case, the developers didn't know about CPAN or just wanted to reinvent said wheel).

Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain

Comment on Re: Of third party products, code reviews and module installation...(discussion)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Of third party products, code reviews and module installation...(discussion) by buckaduck (Chaplain) on Jun 01, 2001 at 23:28 UTC
Aren't most CPAN modules distributed either "freely" or "under the same terms as Perl itself"? I don't see how using a module would create any more licensing problems than would already exist. Unless, as you say, the modules in question have different terms. But after a quick check of some Net:: and Mail:: modules, I don't see that this is a big issue... buckaduck	[reply]