Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Kern Sibbald writes:

> On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
>> 
>> Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that
>> dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is
>> not available to Debian ("... unless that component itself accompanies
>> the executable").
>> 
>> GPL section 3(a) also uses "accompany" in a way that Debian and others
>> interpret to include distribution in the same directory tree on a
>> particular server, so -- the usual line of reasoning goes -- it would
>> be inconsistent to interpret "accompany" one way at the start of
>> section 3 and a different way at the end of section 3.
>
> Well, the above is total Greek to me.  However, I must say that there is 
> absolutely no reason why Bacula would every accompany OpenSSL in any sense of 
> the the English meaning of accompany that I am aware of, nor is Bacula in the 
> same directory tree as any OpenSSL shared object unless you consider 
> everything is under root thus everything on the server is in the same 
> directory "tree".

Bacula and OpenSSL packages are both found on Debian install media and
on mirrors.  I am not sure how to define "accompany" in a way that
excludes that.  In addition, Debian Bacula packages are marked to work
with the specific OpenSSL package at the same place (although others
are compatible).  GPL section 3 provides three options to someone who
wishes to distribute executable binary versions of GPLed works:

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
  under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
  Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

3(c) is not available to Debian.  3(b) is prohibitively expensive.
That leaves 3(a), with this clarification at the end of section 3:

  If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
  access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
  access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
  distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
  compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

This seems to say that "offering equivalent access to copy [] from the
same place" is one way to "accompany", at least in the sense used by
section 3 of the GPL.

> By the way, just to be clear, I consider all this (not you guys but these 
> license difficulties) to be a real pain.  As long as the code is Open Source 
> (i.e. I can get it, see it and modify it), I have no problem with it being 
> linked with Bacula. 

I think most of the Debian community that has dealt with this shares
the sentiment.  I certainly do; it has pushed me to make sure that my
(small amount of) encryption-using code can use either OpenSSL or
GnuTLS's OpenSSL compatibility mode.

Michael Poole