Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL
On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:26, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:11:45AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> > However, the "strict" interpretation would imply that the GPL is not fair
(in
> > the sense of compaints about the Novell - Microsoft contract), because I
can
> > distribute Bacula binaries because no where on any of the project sites do
we
> > distribute OpenSSL, but then the strict definition says that you cannot
> > distribute Bacula because you have OpenSSL someplace on the distribution
> > disks, or on your servers.
>
> I'm not familiar with the arguments that have been made in the case of
> Novell-Microsoft. I'm certainly not aware of any argument why this aspect
> of the GPL is not "fair" (=permitted under law) in a legal sense.
Well, one of the main objections to the Novell-Microsoft contract from what I
understand is that Microsoft has promissed not to pursue Novell or Novell's
customers for any violation of Microsoft patents. According to FSF, if I
understand it right, this is unfair because it only protects a part of the
GPL users and not everyone. Any such license should, according to them,
apply to all or none.
>
> > > In recent times, it
> > > appears that some Unix vendors such as Sun and Apple have also begun
> > > distributing GNU software as part of systems whose cores are not
licensed
> > > compatibly with the GPL, with the FSF's tacit consent; that seems
> > > ill-advised to me, but in any case the FSF's interpretations of the GPL
> > > aren't binding on other copyright holders where those interpretations
don't
> > > follow logically from the text of the license.
>
> > I'm not sure Sun and Apple are so ill-advised.
>
> Sorry, I meant that I considered it ill-advised for the FSF to give their
> tacit approval. :)
I suspect that they are trying to be "practical" and don't want to chase after
users in "technical" violations where there is no intent to subvert Open
Source objectives.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Ah, well, that right there is sufficient for us to use as a license
> > > exception grant. :) But of course it's not binding on other copyright
> > > holders.
>
> > If that resoves the problems, great. Here is what I have just added to
the
> > LICENSE file -- hopefully it should be clear. Here is a snippet from the
> > LICENSE file ...
>
> > ...
> > License:
> > For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2
> > this code is listed under Copyright Free Software Foundation
> > Europe e.V. A small part of the code (less than 20 files) is
> > copyrighted under the GPL by other people (FSF, Sun, ...).
>
> Oh. So this is a case where you've assigned copyright to FSFE? Does the
> FSFE's copyright assignment procedure give you the right to continue
> licensing your code under any license of your choice?
Yes. They have a fiduciary licence arrangement with us (me). The project can
decide what license it will use. There is a certain amount of mutual
consentment, but there is no question that they are not going to (and did not
when I told them) complain about removing modifications to the GPL.
So it is clear, I do have the right to license the software anyway I want, but
of course, if I license it differently, that would be a fork or a special
deal, and might not hold for the project, which is dedicated to Open Source.
FSFE also has certain rights and obligations. 99.9% of it is spelled out on
their web site.
>
> > What follows is information from the authors of the code:
>
> > Linking:
> > Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL.
> > However, if configured with encryption Bacula does use the
> > OpenSSL libraries which are, unfortunately, not compatible with
> > GPL v2. To the best of our knowledge these libaries are not
> > distributed with Bacula code because they are shared objects, and
> > as such there is no conflict with the GPL according what I (Kern)
> > understand in talking to FSFE, and in any case, for the code that
> > I have written, I have no problems linking in OpenSSL (of course
> > this does not speak for the few files in Bacula that are
> > copyrighted by others). If you take a more severe stance on this
> > issue, and you are going to distribute Bacula, then simply do not
> > use the --with-openssl when building your package, and no use of
> > OpenSSL even through dynamic linking will be included.
> > ...
>
> Seems rather overwrought to me for inclusion in a license file. I would
> suggest one of the following two approaches, either:
>
> In addition, for code copyright $foo, permission is explicitly granted to
> distribute binaries dynamically linked with libraries distributed under
> the OpenSSL license, even in cases where those libraries are distributed
> together with the binaries.
>
> or:
>
> It is the understanding of $foo that the GPL permits distribution of
> binaries dynamically linked to OpenSSL, even in cases where OpenSSL is
> distributed together with the binaries.
>
> But if the code is copyright: FSFE, I don't know if this is something you
> would have to clear with them first.
I believe that doing what you suggest would modify the GPL, and I don't want
to do that since it puts me according to FSFE and Red Hat in violation of
other people's licenses.
>
> > > > The problem is that those third-party sources are linked into the
Bacula
> > > > binaries, and since they are licensed as GPL with no modifications, I
> > > > cannot include them in a binary that has code that is licensed in a
way
> > > > that is incompatible with the GPL. Adding the OpenSSL exception to my
> > > > license makes my code incompatible with the non-modified GPL, and
> > > > hence I was violating the license on those 3rd party files
> > > > (copyrighted by FSF, ATT, Sun, and a few others ...).
>
> > > To be clear here, it's not incompatible with the GPL for you to grant
> > > additional linking permissions, which is what is being done. The only
real
> > > issue is that you can't grant such permission on behalf of other
copyright
> > > holders.
>
> > That is what I believed, but according to Fedora/Red Hat and FSFE, the
fact
> > that I have mixed code in a single binary that is "pure" GPL for which I
> > (FSFE) do not hold the copyright and GPL with a modified license violates
the
> > license given by the authors of the "pure" GPL. Since that is serious to
me,
> > and I am not a lawyer, and I have first hand experience in how "illogical"
> > (IMO) judges can be, I prefer to avoid the problem and not modify the GPL.
> > So now Bacula is all "pure" GPL with no modifications with my explanations
in
> > notes rather than as modifications of the license.
>
> What I understand from your other message is that previously, you had
> modified the text of the license under which the code was being distributed.
> That in particular is something that you can't do without permission from
> all of the copyright holders, AFAICS.
Yes.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
>
Reply to: