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

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

Hello Shane,

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.
> ====
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html
> 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?
> Regards
> Shane

Reply to: