Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen <email@example.com> forwarded:
> 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.
Licence proliferation suggestion: use something similar to the
FSF's OpenSSL permission. Here is one from Wget I have here:
In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation
gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the
OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it
that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute
the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License
in all respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you
modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do
so, delete this exception statement from your version.
Not that I think yours is bad, but I think this could be combined
with others using the same phrasing more easily.
+1 to comments about non-OpenSSL-permitting code uncertainty.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct