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

Re: Revised Bacula license

Kern Sibbald wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.

If you link to OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries, you
definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula;
Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: