in reply to Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?

The only problem we at work were having with ActiveState was their licensing constraints: you can not distribute their Perl. If you create an application with an installer, the installer has to download ActivePerl from their site: but there is no API for that and no guarentee the URL will remain the same (and it did change several times).
  • Comment on Re: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?
by Anonymous Monk on Feb 17, 2012 at 08:42 UTC
Re^2: Which is better: ActiveState or Strawberry Perl?
by Marshall (Canon) on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:26 UTC
    If you make a "free standing" .exe with their PerlApp, you can distribute that at will with no restrictions to anybody that you want to. That is how I distribute my .exe code.

    Now that means that this .exe comes with 1MB+ of "baggage", the Perl execution engine for every single ".pl" program. But in today's environment, that size is of no concern in a practical sense.

    But this is correct, you cannot "re-distribute" their Perl. They want you to go back to the "quelle", their source for a Perl system download so that they maintain control of versions and for other marketing purposes! But a single Perl program made into a free-standing .exe with their PerlApp program - not pp, can be freely distributed.