On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R. Hughes muttered drunkenly: > Bart Schaefer wrote: > > BS> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote: > BS> > BS> > Bart Schaefer wrote: > BS> > > BS> > BS> Right; the GPL doesn't require you to expose to any third party any > BS> > BS> changes that you make; it just requires you to provide the source code if > BS> > BS> and when you do expose changes to a third party. > BS> > > BS> > I'm not sure what the GPL requires of you if you modify config files > BS> > which interact programmatically with GPLed code > BS> > BS> All config files interact programmatically with the software they're > BS> configuring. Whether the config file happens to be written in the same > BS> language as the software is irrelevant. > > But some config files are more programmatic than others. Is EvalTests.pm code, > or config file? How about the rules files which contain the more complex > regular expressions? What's the difference between EvalTest and the rule files? > How about between EvalTest and PerMsgStatus? PerMsgStatus and SpamAssassin? > Getting a clearer sense of the potential issues?
Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) Bear in mind that you can license different bits of a program differently; for instance, you could license the EvalTests.pm under a dual license permitting free modification and redistribution, or mod/redist under the GPL. (Only the author can relicense, of course.) > BS> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > BS> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > BS> running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program > BS> is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > BS> Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)." > BS> > BS> The usual IANAL applies, but I don't think installing SA on a machine you > BS> own and allowing users of the machine to run it can be said to constitute > BS> "copying" or "distribution" to those users. > > modification though is covered, Copyright licenses by their very definition only cover copying/ distribution. You can modify to your heart's content and the GPL doesn't need to be consulted; it's only when you try to distribute that you have to consult it to see if you're allowed to distribute it. > BS> I don't think you're reading 2(b) that wrong, but just because the program > BS> reads and executes a config file doesn't mean that the config file is > BS> "contained" in the "work." (If the GPL included a definition of a "work" > BS> a lot of this confusion could be avoided.) "Running the Program is not > BS> restricted" -- if the config file doesn't become part of the program until > BS> the program runs, it's not covered. > > Can I build any extension I want to on a GPL base and just all those extra bits > config files? Or just call the parts I don't want the GPL to apply to config > files? If that's true then the GPL strikes me as providing no value. The GPL does not mention `config files'. There is the work, and there is `everything else'. I'd say (guessing wildly; IANAL) that the standardly provided rules files *are* part of the work, but user config files are not. Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) -- `Unless they've moved it since I last checked, travelling between England and America does not involve crossing the equator.' --- pir _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
