[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

On Friday 08 June 2007 00:54, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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 
> > the the English meaning of accompany that I am aware of, nor is Bacula in 
> > 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 
> > (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

The bottom line is that this license stuff for a developer such as me is all 
absurd, and I'm not going to worry about it any longer. 

I've decided for the moment to go with a straight GPL v2 license, and if I can 
over time eliminate all the GPL copyrighted code by others, I will switch to 
a nice simple license that provides a "tit for a tat" clause as Linus calls 
it  (i.e. requires releasing the source if you modify and distribute it).

In the mean time, I sincerely hope that Debian finds some way to continue 
releasing Bacula.



Reply to: