Re: Revised Bacula license
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:58:51AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 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.
Or rather, on all GPL code that links to OpenSSL. Some code in Bacula