Under the terms of the GPL, that would constitute a modified version (even without changing any rules), so there are some additional terms that would need to be followed. The Artistic license is generally less restrictive, if more difficult to understand.
AFAIK the only GPL restrictions on modified versions are covered under section 2, and basically boil down to:
a) notification of being a modified version in an obvious way
b) still GPL licensed without other terms or charge for converting to a GPL license
c) have a copyright notice with a no-warranty statement
So I guess In my original statement I did miss these terms, but then again, that's why I said have a lawyer look over it.
And I do totally agree that the artistic is generally less restrictive, to the point that I often wonder if legally it's the functional equivalent of a BSD license, despite it's complex terms.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
