Re: Revised Bacula license
> 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:
>> 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.
Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a
Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by
Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you
mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full
control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people.
Best regards, Kern