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 original "work" plus the new/modified code-or-config file in question. The GPL cuts both ways: If I take my local.cf file and declare it to be GPL'd, then I'm not allowed to add it to SA and distribute the whole thing as a new "work", because SA is not GPL'd and I do not own the copyright to SA. I can distribute my local.cf file separately, but I can't claim it to part of the same "work" as SA unless I lift the GPL restrictions. Tangential opinion: It's code if the compiler or interpreter (perl in this case) is unable to process some other part of the code without it; e.g., in the case of Perl programs, if it's read with a "use" or "require" statement, it's code, if it's read with a 'do' statement or by an explicit 'open' it's a config file. > Can I build any extension I want to on a GPL base and just all those > extra bits config files? As long as nothing that you do modifies the original GPL base prior to the program beginning to "run," yes, you can. You can't claim that your extension is part of the original program, though, and IF you distribute the original program along with your extension, you have to make available the source of the original program even if you don't provide the source for your extension. IANAL, etc. > Or just call the parts I don't want the GPL to apply to config files? > If that's true then the GPL strikes me as providing no value. "If you distribute the original program along with your extension, you have to make available the source of the original program" is the value that the GPL is intended to provide, in this instance. > BS> A GPL'd plugin does not > BS> (in fact, specifically cannot -- "This General Public License does not > BS> permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs") cause the > BS> program into which it plugs to become GPL'd. > > The clause you quote sound to me like it does not cause the plugged-into > program to become GPLed, because you are not granted a license to use > GPLed code in that way in the first place. Yes, that's exactly it. The author of the plugin can't do it because he is not the copyright owner of the plugged-into program, and if the author of the plugged-into program chooses to do it then he's got to put his program under the GPL. But this only applies to either of them in the event the result is to be copied or distributed. > [...] If I copy/paste one line of GPL code into SpamAssassin, then I > *must* release the entire thing under the GPL Or not release it at all. The GPL can't force you to release it, it can only force you to use the GPL *if* you do release it. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
