On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Craig R. Hughes muttered drunkenly: > Nix wrote: > N> Bear in mind that you can license different bits of a program > N> differently; for instance, you could license the EvalTests.pm under a > N> dual license permitting free modification and redistribution, or > N> mod/redist under the GPL. > > But if you package them all together, you can't. As I understand the GPL, if > you package it all together, it all has to be GPL if any part of it is.
Such packaging would probably be `mere aggregation'. > N> (Only the author can relicense, of course.) > > Well, the copyright holder, which is not necessarily the author. True. > N> Copyright licenses by their very definition only cover copying/ > N> distribution. You can modify to your heart's content and the GPL doesn't > N> need to be consulted; it's only when you try to distribute that you have > N> to consult it to see if you're allowed to distribute it. > > I would think that public performances also involve issue of copyright. If you > are an ISP and "performing" the software for your users, and have modified that > software, you're going to have to perform under the terms of the license. If The GPL clause 0 states ,---- | Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not | covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of | running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program | is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the | Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). | Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. `---- so the GPL does not apply, and you can hack it as much as you like. (This is a flaw in the GPL which is apparently going to be fixed in v3, in that a network-accessible service made out of GPLed code which has been modified will need to have the source made available. The reasoning behind this is, I hope, obvious :) ) > N> I'd say (guessing wildly; IANAL) that the standardly provided rules > N> files *are* part of the work, but user config files are not. Ask > N> [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) > > I'd probably agree with that, but the line between user config files and > "standardly provided rules" is way blurry, particularly with the > allow_user_rules option in 2.20 -- again I think our best option is to pursue > the suggestion of GPL section 10 rather than try and solve the puzzling gray > areas that continue to shroud the GPL itself. I'd agree with that. (The GPL holds up well for an eleven-plus year old license, but it really *needs* that v3 revision round.) -- `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
