Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Monday 24 September 2007 18:08, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> Hi Kern
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed:
> > 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with
> > OpenSSL.
> I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps well within the
> precedent already accepted by the Bacula developers.
> I saw that there is an OpenSSL exception already proposed by the
> Debian-legal list:
> In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give
> permission to link the code of portions of this program with the
> OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each
> individual source file, and distribute linked combinations
> including the two.
> You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects
> for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify
> file(s) with this exception, you may extend this exception to your
> version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you
> do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
> version. If you delete this exception statement from all source
> files in the program, then also delete it here.
> This seems like a quick and neat solution.
Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting.
However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I
prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was
accepted by Debian. The modification makes my prior license a bit more
specific -- i.e. it restricts it to OSI licensed libraries.
Exception to the GPL:
Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted
under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
required for its proper functioning, providing the license and hence source
code of those non-GPLed libraries comply with the Open Source Definition as
defined by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).
I think this is much clearer than my original license, no less restrictive,
avoids allowing someone to modify the license, but is a bit broader than the
OpenSSL exception listed above, but corresponds to what I believed the GPL
permitted when I originally chose the license for releasing the code.
Does anyone have any objections to this?
> Debian guys, anything to add?