I don't believe that because you posted a module you intend to install.

Which is the relevant difference that allows you to install the module you posted, but not HTML::Entities?

I don't believe that because you posted a module you intend to install.

Excuse me?
Do you think I'm lying about trivial things like this for no reason?

I didn't post a module, I posted a script - the important difference being that I can integrate this script into a bigger perl script I'm writing by simply putting it in a sub, and users can just run my script and not worry about how it converts HTML to txt. If I were to use a module, I'd have to tell users to install the module (utterly unrealistic in the case of most users) or package the whole thing up with PAR::Packer, which can break quite easily. BTW the original solution I used was HTML::Entities and HTML::Strip, then packaging the whole thing with PAR::Packer. But then I realized that an executable made with PAR::Packer on Ubuntu 9.x may not run on 8.x and an OS X Snow Leopard executable may not run on Leopard or Tiger... so here I am rewriting the HTML converter for compatibility, and here you are not believing it all for some mysterious reason.

There is App::fatpacker, which will inline all (pure Perl) modules into your script, so even you can use lots of CPAN.

I didn't post a module, I posted a script

There's no difference.

I'd have to tell users to install the module

You already are having them install one.

the important difference being that I can integrate this script into a bigger perl script

So the real limitation is that you don't want to have two files. That's fine. Can't help you there short of combining the two modules/scripts into one. That's probably still less work then reimplementing existing work, though.