Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 16:03, MJ Ray wrote:
> Shane Martin Coughlan <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > Exception to the GPL:
> > > Linking:
> > > Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted=20
> > > under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL,
> > > that=
> > are
> > > required for its proper functioning, providing the license and hence
> > > so=
> > urce=20
> > > code of those non-GPLed libraries comply with the Open Source
> > > Definitio=
> > n as=20
> > > defined by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).
> That seems like a copyleft-busting hole you can drive a truck through.
> I'd strongly suggest using the GNU-wget-style exception cited below.
I'm not really too interested in copyleft. I was originally going to Bacula
in the public domain, but chose the GPL primarily because I believed at the
time that people who made changes were obligated to give them back to the
project. As it turns out this is not at all the case, apparently only the
people to whom you directly give the code have the right to the source code
>opyright (This seems not to be mentioned in the Wget manual online just
> > The list of licences accepted by OSI as Open Source is more or less
> > the same as the list of licences accepted by the FSF as Free Software.
> That's simply not true today. FSF have rejected one that OSI approved, and
> FSF's list reflects real hacker enquiries, while OSI's list reflects mainly
> which licences have lawyer-advocates. For differences, see the survey at
> Tip: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/2007-September/001570.html
> > In addition, as a special exception, the Bacula Project gives
> > permission to link the code of its release of Bacula with the OpenSSL
> > project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use
> > the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked
> > executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
> > respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify
> > this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file,
> > but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete
> > this exception statement from your version.
> Seems good to me.