>-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:45 AM >To: Loren Wilton >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re[4]: daily updates > > >Hello Loren, > >Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 9:32:26 PM, you wrote: > >>> The version 2 Apache license has some text allowed >"trivial" contributions >>> to not require CLAs -- but then, what's the definition of >"trivial"? we >>> haven't got a really good definition of that as it applies >to rules yet, >>> unfortunately ;) > >LW> I'd suggest as a lower limit that a contribution of a >single rule ought to >LW> be 'trivial' in the CLA sense, even if it does happen to >tag 50% of the spam >LW> and no ham. > >A rule like >> header T_DOUBLE_USCORES Subject =~ /__/ >yes. A rule that had seven or eight negative look-aheads, >eight or nine >character classes, and nine or ten alternatives, might be the type of >rule that requires a CLA. > >I'm more concerned with the method of submission. If a single rule is >submitted with the intent that it be available to the entire community, >that's good for me. If we don't know that, however, it's possible the >submitter /meant/ it to be available to individual systems >that are doing >their own anti-spam work, but does *not* want it to be included in any >distribution that will be incorporated into and then sold as a >commercial >product. > >That's why I'm trying to track authorship of the SARE rules I >manage, so >we can find out whether the original author has any objections to full >SA distribution if/when appropriate. > >Bob Menschel
Perhaps we should make it clearer on the SARE site about submissions. All will fall under the CLA. And the possibility of it being used by a commercial product is HIGH. They forfeit all rights, privileges, and kidney's they may have. :) --Chris
