Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> 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 (eay@cryptsoft.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.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu