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

Re: Revised Bacula license

This one time, at band camp, Josh Triplett said:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > Can you all take a look at the below new license?  I took a quick look
> > and it looks good to me.
> This revised license looks DFSG-free to me.  One note, though:
> > 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.
> [...]
> > Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their
> > copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications.  These
> > software files are clearly marked as such.
> If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as
> OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed
> libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would
> violate the GPL on those portions without the exception.  This doesn't
> make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute
> Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries.

This would need to be reviewed, I think, before being sure.  It is my
understanding that bacula uses a client/server implementation, so it is
not clear to me that a lack of an excemption in the client code would
prevent the server (with proper excemption) from linking to ssl.

But as you say, this is not a freeness issue, just a useability one.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: