Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> Under the terms of the GPL, that would constitute a modified version
>> (even without changing any rules), so there are some additional terms
>> that would need to be followed. The Artistic license is generally less
>> restrictive, if more difficult to understand.
Matt K
At 04:57 PM 6/26/2003 -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Under the terms of the GPL, that would constitute a modified version
(even without changing any rules), so there are some additional terms
that would need to be followed. The Artistic license is generally less
restrictive, if more difficult to und
Ian Searle wrote:
>> We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
>> rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
>> understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules
>> we use to the Spamassasin development team in our product, and its
At 12:50 PM 6/26/2003 -0700, Ian Searle wrote:
We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules we
use to the Spamassasin development team in our p
We are considering using a subset and derivative of the Spamassasin
rules in a commercial product (WatchGuard's WFS-Spamscreen). My
understanding of the license is that we need to attribute the rules we
use to the Spamassasin development team in our product, and its
literature. Is this correct?
T
