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 instance, you could license the EvalTests.pm under a N> dual license permitting free modification and redistribution, or N> mod/redist under the GPL. But if you package them all together, you can't. As I understand the GPL, if you package it all together, it all has to be GPL if any part of it is. N> (Only the author can relicense, of course.) Well, the copyright holder, which is not necessarily the author. N> Copyright licenses by their very definition only cover copying/ N> distribution. You can modify to your heart's content and the GPL doesn't N> need to be consulted; it's only when you try to distribute that you have N> to consult it to see if you're allowed to distribute it. I would think that public performances also involve issue of copyright. If you are an ISP and "performing" the software for your users, and have modified that software, you're going to have to perform under the terms of the license. If you're just using it for personal purposes, you're probably right, you can modify it as much as you want without repercussions as long as you don't distribute the modified work except as the license allows. N> > BS> I don't think you're reading 2(b) that wrong, but just because the program N> > BS> reads and executes a config file doesn't mean that the config file is N> > BS> "contained" in the "work." (If the GPL included a definition of a "work" N> > BS> a lot of this confusion could be avoided.) "Running the Program is not N> > BS> restricted" -- if the config file doesn't become part of the program until N> > BS> the program runs, it's not covered. N> > N> > Can I build any extension I want to on a GPL base and just all those extra bits N> > config files? Or just call the parts I don't want the GPL to apply to config N> > files? If that's true then the GPL strikes me as providing no value. N> N> The GPL does not mention `config files'. There is the work, and there is N> `everything else'. N> N> I'd say (guessing wildly; IANAL) that the standardly provided rules N> files *are* part of the work, but user config files are not. Ask N> [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) I'd probably agree with that, but the line between user config files and "standardly provided rules" is way blurry, particularly with the allow_user_rules option in 2.20 -- again I think our best option is to pursue the suggestion of GPL section 10 rather than try and solve the puzzling gray areas that continue to shroud the GPL itself. C _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
