Hi, True, true... but :)
QT, Apache, mod_ssl et al can all be considered 'modules' that run on Linux which is GPL'd :) Isn't Inodb for MySQL not GPL'd but still an optional part of MySQL (which is now GPL'd) ? Either way a quick letter the the FSF or RMS would clear it up and this is probably a little OT for this list (but it is an interesting discussion) so we should probably drop it after a few more comments or take it off-list. Regards, Rick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. 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, which, if it later affected the way you wrote some other piece of code, would mean that the code you wrote was now also GPL'd. This is obviously a very paranoid interpretation, but not unheard-of. > My basic understanding is, if the product does not require the GPL > module to perform or run, then the product retains it's original license > even though some modules may be GPL'd. (Example, mod_ssl for Apache. > Mod_ssl is a bsd license and Apache is the Apache license) None of the QT, XFree, Apache or BSD licenses is "viral" in the way that the GPL is, so you can't really use those as examples. -- Bart (Not a Lawyer Either) Schaefer _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
