Of course it's legal.
If they've made any changes to SA, they're obligated to release them to anybody who buys the product (NOT necessarily to have them publically available on a web/FTP site; that's just usually the route people take.)
If they've *not* made any changes to SA, they just incorporate it and go nuts. Anybody asks them for the source, they point the person to the SA website, and say 'we've not made any modifications.'
It should also be pointed out that SA is NOT straight GPL software.. it's dual-licensed with the Artistic license.
Thus they don't absolutely have to release their changes if the they choose the Artistic License option 3c for "modified versions" and 4c for distribution of object or executable form. Of course, IANAL, but the artistic license does allow certain forms of use that the GPL does not..
Take your own read of the License file in the SA distro. Here's the text of the sections I mentioned
3. <snip>
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide
a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
<snip>
4. <snip>
c) accompany any non-standard executables with their corresponding
Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables
non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual
pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get
the Standard Version.
<snip>
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
