spam-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Spam-discuss] Re: licensing of spamd/spamc


From: Craig R Hughes
Subject: [Spam-discuss] Re: licensing of spamd/spamc
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT)

Bradley,

flattered that the FSF is using our stuff!

Yes indeed, I intended the software to be covered under the same dual-license 
(really just one license with an option) as perl itself.  I will update the 
source to reflect that, but in the meantime you can take this email as an 
explicit grant of license to the FSF to use my code under whichever version of 
the GPL you like.

C

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

BMK> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:40:09 -0400
BMK> From: Bradley M. Kuhn <address@hidden>
BMK> To: Craig R. Hughes <address@hidden>
BMK> Cc: address@hidden
BMK> Subject: licensing of spamd/spamc
BMK> 
BMK> Hello, Craig.
BMK> 
BMK> We are using SpamAssassin as part of a system-wide SPAM solution here at
BMK> the FSF and the GNU project.  We very much want to use your spamd/spamc
BMK> code that allows SpamAssassin to run via a daemon.
BMK> 
BMK> However, we noted that your licensing information is a bit ambiguous, and
BMK> we wondered if you would clarify it for us.
BMK> 
BMK> spamc.c says:
BMK> 
BMK> > /*
BMK> >  * This code is copyright 2001 by Craig Hughes
BMK> >  * It is licensed for use with SpamAssassin according to the terms of
BMK> >  * the Perl Artistic License The text of this license is included in the
BMK> >  * SpamAssassin distribution in the file named "License"
BMK> >  */
BMK> 
BMK> Meanwhile, spamd.raw says:
BMK> 
BMK> > ############################################################
BMK> > # The code in this file is copyright 2001 by Craig Hughes  #
BMK> > # It is licensed for use with the SpamAssassin distribution#
BMK> > # under the terms of the Perl Artistic License, the text of#
BMK> > # which is included as the file named "License"            #
BMK> > ############################################################
BMK> 
BMK> 
BMK> We hope very much that you meant to release your software under the same
BMK> license as perl itself.  As you may know, the license of perl itself is
BMK> not just the Artistic license, but the disjunctive dual license of GPL or
BMK> Artistic.
BMK> 
BMK> Here is the typical way that is typically stated (and this text indeed
BMK> shows up in one of your files):
BMK> 
BMK> >     This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
BMK> >     it under the terms of either:
BMK> >
BMK> >   a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
BMK> >   Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version,
BMK> >   or
BMK> >
BMK> >   b) the "Artistic License" which comes with this Kit.
BMK> 
BMK> 
BMK> Would you be willing to clarify the statements to note that you do intend
BMK> to license the spamc/spamd under the same license as perl itself?
BMK> 
BMK> I suggest you rewrite your notices like this:
BMK> 
BMK>   Copyright (C) 2001, Craig Huges.
BMK> 
BMK>   You may copy, modify and/or distribute this software under the same
BMK>   terms as perl itself.  The full terms are listed in the file "License"
BMK>   that comes with this software.
BMK> 
BMK> 
BMK> If you have concerns about doing this, I would be happy to discuss them
BMK> with you, via phone or email.
BMK> 
BMK> [ Feel free to reply back to me directly, or if you are comfortable doing
BMK>   so, to the whole <address@hidden> list.  That list is the
BMK>   internal technical people at FSF who are working on this SPAM
BMK>   solution. ]
BMK> 
BMK> --
BMK> Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director
BMK> Free Software Foundation     |  Phone: +1-617-542-5942
BMK> 59 Temple Place, Suite 330   |  Fax:   +1-617-542-2652
BMK> Boston, MA 02111-1307  USA   |  Web:   http://www.gnu.org
BMK> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]