Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on debian build
Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> writes:
> I personally don't believe that such distribution is a problem --
> after all Debian does distribute pure GPLv2 code and OpenSSL source
> code on the same ISO image.
This should not be a problem anyway as it falls under the "mere
aggregation" clause.
> Problems of mismatched licenses apparently occur when forming and
> distributing a "mixed" binary program or when mixing different
> licenced source code in the same file and distributing it. As far
> as I know Bacula 2.4.x does not mix source code with different
> licenses in the same source file (we simply call libraries that when
> executed are incompatible), and Debian as well as its derivatives
> have decided not to form a Bacula binary using the offending
> libraries.
I see what you mean, but I think there is a problem with this
reasoning. If you redistribute GPLv2ed sources you must ensure that
all recipients of the code enjoy the rights granted to you the license
(6.). One such right is the distribution of the software as a binary
(3.), which you may not without satisfying OpenSSL's advertizing
clause. Which in turn means you may not distribute the software at all
(7.).
> In any case, there are many other programs that have far worse
> problems than the old Bacula code. Most of the Bacula problems
> involve code copyrighted by FSF, and the FSF is very well aware of
> the Bacula problem all the way up to RMS. They are also very well
> aware that I take those problems seriously and fixed them a long
> time ago. For these kinds of "technical" problems, I certainly hope
> that no one would not want to simply stop supplying the source code
> -- that would likely hurt the users far more than helping the Free
> Software movement, and so far none of the authors of the pure GPLv2
> code have complained.
I fully agree here. I don't think the FSF(E) will go berzerk for
someone distributing Bacula. However, Debian's policy on licensing
usually involves taking the high road rather than doing what you can
get away with. Moreover, the belief that distributing software in
source form magically frees you from your obligations under the GPL
seems rather mystical to me.
Hendrik
Reply to: