http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5833
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-21 01:34 ------- sorry if that was quick; I left the discussion for 24-36 hours, but possibly should have left it for longer for more comments. However it's arguable as to what difference that would have made, since we were already in a state that required that BIS notification, and have been for several *years* -- we just hadn't realised it. The BIS notification refers to already-published, existing code as well as the current stuff. > Just because one of the front-ends (spamc/spamd) to > SpamAssassin uses SSL, now the whole project is tainted. I wonder if there > is a way back, splitting out the spamc/spamd, and leaving the rest clean. unfortunately spamc/spamd is distributed and developed as part of one overall "package" -- Apache SpamAssassin. There is indeed a way back -- if we were to split off spamc/spamd, or a new sslspamc/sslspamd as a separate subproject, with a separate distribution in future, that'd do it. It's not like a "viral" license. There'd just be a new table row on http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ for that new version and future versions, with the new status. Is it necessary/worth it? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
