Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> 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.
Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. Yes, definitely agreed about the lawyer. There's also this: ------- start of cut text -------------- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. ------- end ---------------------------- Notwithstanding the interpretation in the SpamAssassin license file, this has yet to be interpreted in a court. > 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. It's not quite the equivalent since it requires the licensee do some silly stuff of little or no benefit to users or the original copyright holders, but as far as an author (my perspective) writing works under the license is concerned, it is functionally similar. The licenses I prefer for their clarity are: - X11 license (sometimes MIT license) - Mozilla - Apache - GNU GPL (for non-libraries) and LGPL (for libraries) Daniel P.S. Just say "no" to license proliferation, use an existing license, don't create yet another new one. -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, and open http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ source consulting (looking for new work) ------------------------------------------------------- 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
