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

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > 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 
> > 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.
> This looks like a good thing to do in the long term anyway, and not only
> for licensing matters.
> > 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 
> > 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 
> > question.
> The GPL v3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license. However, section
> 6 states:
>         A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is
>         excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need
>         not be included in conveying the object code work.
> Apart from the very bad wording, I think the OpenSSL libraries can be
> perfectly considered as part of the "System libraries".
> This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL
> software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can
> also be included in Debian.

Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (restriction of my freedom) 
is in GPL if it does not permit linking with OpenSSL (IMO).

I agree with your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that is not 
the "official" interpretation that Debian takes or am I mistaken?  

In fact, I consider for linking with Bacula as a separately installed piece of 
the system libraries that OpenSSL is part of the "operating" system in the 
same way that tcp wrappers or glibc is or any other library is, which would 
mean that there should be no problem with GPL v2.  However, I know as a fact 
that as far as GPL v2 goes, Debian definitely does not agree with my 

> Please note that this is only applicable if your third-party
> contributions are licensed under GPL v2 or later.

Bacula code is GPL v2, but all third party GPL'ed code (mostly FSF) is GPL v2 
or later.

> > 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate 
> > third party software from Bacula and change the license to less 
> > one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software.
> GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more
> luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to
> accept an entirely new license.

I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I 
have already explored.



Unless Debian finds that GPL v3 will work with OpenSSL, barring one more 
unexplored avenue, over time, I'll purge all third party GPL'ed code and 
either modify or more likely switch off the GPL license ...

> Cheers,
> -- 
>  .''`.
> : :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
> `. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
>   `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Reply to: