Re: Revised Bacula license
From: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com>
Trademark:
The name Bacula is a registered trademark.
I assume there is an implicit trademark licence.
In this case an implicit licence is probably better than an explicit
one, solely because it is virtually impossible to word a trademark licence
to allow reasonable modifications, but not major incompatible changes
without changing the name.
===================================
License:
For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2
and any code that is Copyright Kern Sibbald and John Walker or
Copyright Kern Sibbald (after November 2004) with the GPL
indication is so licensed, but with the following four additions:
Ok. To ensure GPL compatibility, it may be wise to
add the clauses stating that derivitives need not keep the
additional clauses, but may do so.
Linking:
Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL,
or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of
those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely
available to the public.
IP rights:
Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the
licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are
provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe
the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other
entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient
for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of
intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to
exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each
Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other
intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a
third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to
distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to
acquire that license before distributing the Program.
I belive that is a no-op. Obviously that is the case,
Copyrights:
Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has
sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant
the copyright license set forth in this Agreement.
Is that nessissary? I thought that the GPL already had that covered.
Reply to: