On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> SA *is* distributed under both licenses.
It's moot now, of course, but the point was that different parts of SA
could be distributed under different and non-overlapping licenses if the
install procedure was sufficiently clever.
_
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:23:29PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> (Note that SA *could* be distributed under *two* licenses, both the GPL
> and the Artistic, with a compile-time option to neither use nor install
> the language library if the licensee does not agree to be bound by the
> GPL.)
SA *i
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
DQ> Craig R Hughes writes:
DQ>
DQ> > So we cannot include the languages analysis library as a plugin to
DQ> > SA without placing under the GPL. This sounds like you agree with
DQ> > the basic problem I think I have with such an inclusion.
DQ>
DQ> I think it could be "solved
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Bart Schaefer writes:
>
> > That doesn't matter. The *GPL* says that I can't include my GPL'd
> > code in any other work that is not GPL'd. Even if SA's license says
> > it's OK, I'm contradicting my own license if I do so.
>
> You don't need licen
Craig R Hughes writes:
> So we cannot include the languages analysis library as a plugin to
> SA without placing under the GPL. This sounds like you agree with
> the basic problem I think I have with such an inclusion.
I think it could be "solved" by distributing it separately (quite easy
since
Bart Schaefer writes:
> That doesn't matter. The *GPL* says that I can't include my GPL'd code in
> any other work that is not GPL'd. Even if SA's license says it's OK, I'm
> contradicting my own license if I do so.
You don't need license code you own to yourself. If you own the code,
you can
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> BS> The GPL cuts both ways: If I take my local.cf file and declare it to
> BS> be GPL'd, then I'm not allowed to add it to SA and distribute the
> BS> whole thing as a new "work", because SA is not GPL'd and I do not
> BS> own
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R. Hughes muttered drunkenly:
> Nix wrote:
> N> Bear in mind that you can license different bits of a program
> N> differently; for instance, you could license the EvalTests.pm under a
> N> dual license permitting free modification and redistribution, or
> N> mod/redist
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
BS>
BS> > Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> >
BS> > But some config files are more programmatic than others. Is
BS> > EvalTests.pm code, or config file?
BS>
BS> You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's code or config
BS>
Nix wrote:
N> Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] :)
I'd rather just see if the original author is willing to grant us a BSD-style or
Artisitic license, than enter into a philosophical/legal/ethical debate with the
FSF.
N> Bear in mind that you can license different bits of a program
N> differently; for inst
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> But some config files are more programmatic than others. Is
> EvalTests.pm code, or config file?
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether it's code or config
file unless you're copying and distributing the whole
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R. Hughes muttered drunkenly:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> BS>
> BS> > Bart Schaefer wrote:
> BS> >
> BS> > BS> Right; the GPL doesn't require you to expose to any third party any
> BS> > BS> changes that you make; it just
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Bart Schaefer said:
>On a guess, I'd say that
> it all comes back to the GPL's use of "work" as a noun without defining
> it. "The work" of a program could be construed to include its algorithms.
IANAL, but `the work' in copyri
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
BS>
BS> > Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> >
BS> > BS> Right; the GPL doesn't require you to expose to any third party any
BS> > BS> changes that you make; it just requires you to provide the source code if
BS> > BS> and when you do expo
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> BS> Right; the GPL doesn't require you to expose to any third party any
> BS> changes that you make; it just requires you to provide the source code if
> BS> and when you do expose changes to a third party.
>
> I'm not sure w
Bart Schaefer writes:
> This, on the other hand, is not clear. The GPL attempts to apply to the
> algorithms used in the code as well as to the literal code itself; some
> people interpret this to mean that if you so much as look at a piece of
> GPL'd code, you might accidentally learn something
Bart Schaefer wrote:
BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
BS> > It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and
BS> > I think there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending
BS> > it in ways which are compatible with the SA license, but not with
Craig R Hughes writes:
> Of course, maybe the original author could be convinced to offer an
> Artistic license on his work, then the problem would magically go
> away.
I'll ask.
> I imagine this would probably happen more frequently in email than
> in "normal" text, since emails tend to use ab
OTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] ok_languages addition
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> An add on module to Spam Assassin (IMHO) would not make SpamAssassin a
> GPL'd product, just that module [...]
This, on the other hand, is not clear
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and
> I think there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending
> it in ways which are compatible with the SA license, but not with the
> GPL (they don't want to release
;
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] ok_languages addition
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 the voices made Rick Macdougall write:
> An add on module to Spam Assassin (IMH
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 the voices made Rick Macdougall write:
> An add on module to Spam Assassin (IMHO) would not make SpamAssassin a GPL'd
> product, just that module
This is my understanding as well, but I'm not sure if that module can be part
of the basic package that people download when gett
From: "Craig R Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Daniel Quinlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] ok_languages addition
DQ> Do you accept GPL modules?
It's hard, since the GPL is incom
DQ> Do you accept GPL modules?
It's hard, since the GPL is incompatible with the Artistic license, and I think
there are a lot of people who use SA who are presently extending it in ways
which are compatible with the SA license, but not with the GPL (they don't want
to release source back, or wa
24 matches
Mail list logo
