> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:36 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mcafee-spamassassin-rules
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 01:38:32PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > > It's also worth noting that hypothetically, if I was a
> > > company releasing
> > > updates based on an open-source product, I may have
> incentive to avoid
> > > making those updates useful on said product, otherwise
> people would
> > > download my updates and not pay me for the software.
> >
> > Wouldn't that be against the open source lic?
>
> Not that I'm aware of, why would it be? If I produce something on my
> own (like new rules) and publish it, I'm not bound by someone else's
> licensing. In this case, if I'm following the code license and make
> modifications such that new rules that I produce are in a proprietary
> format, then that's perfectly valid. With SA 3, I could even make the
> config parsing a plugin and not have to modify any of the base code.
Yeah, I was taking a jab at someone on the list ;)
Actually I have nothing but PRAISE for Mcafee. They are one company who actually give back to the community. If the list knew everything, they would all be emailing mcafee a "thank you" email!
I'd go work for them, if it wasn't for...you know... that whole UK thing ;)
Thanks,
Chris Santerre
SysAdmin and Spamfighter
www.rulesemporium.com
www.uribl.com
