On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 01:10 +0000, Anthony Lucas wrote: > But, why on earth would this go into a "standard perl distribution"? It > doesn't sound very standard OR widely distributable.
Had the request genuinely been to get their particularly DBD into the standard Perl distribution I'd agree but I think it's clear now that what was really being asked was for details on what is the standard way to distribute such a module within the Perl ecosystem. That's a very different proposition. I'm no fan of non-free software however the fact is that some people will use this product, and other similarly non-free ones, and those people will be content with the distribution requirements. So long as the companies offering it comply with the license terms of those whose software they build upon what is the problem?
