Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL
Kern Sibbald <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have seen various FSF FAQs over the years that have claimed that
> > distributing binaries linked against OpenSSL is ok, but these FAQs
> > have been mute on the matter of distribution as part of an OS. >
> I haven't seen them, but that doesn't surprise me as I don't believe
> that FSF ever really wanted to prohibit linking against OpenSSL, and
> if they did, they have clearly changed their minds since the GPL v3
> permits it.
I do not think that GPLv3 permits it. The OpenSSL license has the
obnoxious advertising clause
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* "This product includes cryptographic software written by
* Eric Young (email@example.com)"
* The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library
* being used are not cryptographic related :-).
The current draft of GPLv3 allows some additional provisions such as
d. limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or
but nothing like the advertising clause.