Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 10:30, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 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.  
> 
> GPL v3 *is* compatible with the OpenSSL (actually the Apache) license 
> according to FSF.

The FSF claims that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache 2.0 license,
which does not have the advertising clause.  The Apache license used
to have the advertising clause, but it was removed in 2007 with the
Apache license 1.1.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu