Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software
>> (DFSG 9).
>> I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug.
> How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a
> problem, but only for users of Bacula.
I would like to understand that as well, especially since I explicitly
indicate in LICENSE that certain parts of the code not copyrighted by
myself are licensed under the GPL with no modifications.
John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the
- I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled:
"Termination for IP or Patent Action".
- I change the manual license to be GPL v2.
Specifically, what I would like to know is: are there any other problems
with the licensing?
Best regards, Kern