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

Bacula and OpenSSL

Hello Shane,

Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be 
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that 
recently came up with the Bacula license.  My purpose is not to debate the 
issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacula so that all 
distributions can use it with OpenSSL or any other Open Source code without 
problems.  Please excuse me if I provide you with a bit of my reasoning and 
thoughts -- the idea is to help you target responses so I can end up with an 
accpetable solution.

Bacula originally used the GPL v2 license, but I added some modifications to 
it -- most if not all are (IMO) now contained in the GPL v3.  However, some 
of my original modifications created objections with Debian, so I removed 
them. In addition, Debian has an issue with distributing Bacula linked with 
OpenSSL and as a consequence, I added a modification to the GPL permitting 
Debian to link Bacula with OpenSSL.

In more recent discussions with you, it seems that some of my modifications to 
the GPL (particularly the "Debian" clause) created a legal problem with 
Fedora and hence Red Hat because the GPL v2 is incompatible with the OpenSSL 
license and because there are about 10-20 files in the Bacula source that are 
copyrighted by third-parties under the GPL, so by modifying my license, I was 
or could have been technically violating their licenses.

Most recently, I removed all modifications I had made to the GPL so the Bacula 
code written by myself and Bacula contributors is copyrighted under GPL v2.

Where we are:
As the Bacula source code currently stands, I expect that since it is pure GPL 
that it is acceptable as is to most distros.  However, my understanding is 
that Debian will not be able to build the next version with OpenSSL due to 
their interpretation of the GPL.  I find this a pity -- particularly because 
Debian was the first distro to officially package Bacula, and because I am 
also moving my systems over time to a Debian base.

What I would like:
I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without 
licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.

How do we get there?
It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:

1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls.  One Debian user is working on this, but it 
is not a small nor an easy project.  And though it is something I consider 
very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the 
problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL.

2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution.  Like Linus, I 
don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula 
compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me 
to be an easy solution.  I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache 
license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever 
OpenSSL uses?  I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this 

3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all 
third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive 
one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software.

Does anyone see any other solutions that I am missing?

If at all possible, I would like to get at least the direction on how to 
resolve this defined within the next several weeks.  If alternative 2 is 
viable, it is something that I can probably do for release 2.2.0. 

Best regards,


Reply to: