Hi,
Martin Simmons wrote:
E.g. suppose you have written a non-trivial non-GPL data analysis tool with
plugins for different input formats. Now if you want to add a plugin for
Bacula volumes, but you won't be able to use any of the Bacula volume reading
code because it will taint your whole tool with the GPL, even though you are
not really make a "derived work" of Bacula (just a small part of it that could
have been a library).
I think we're approaching a region where you need a lawyer to come to a
conclusion.
That is something I've seen before when GPL licensing was discussed.
Other Open Source licenses will have similar effects, but I don't follow
these discussions that long, usually.
Now, Martin, I think you might be absolutely right. But, and I guess
you'd admit that, your example is not very realistic at the moment.
The simple solution in such a case would be to ask Kern to grant a
license for that purpose, and I think he would.
The alternative is not to ask, and probably it would take quite a while
until somebody notices.
More important - while I freely admit that the GPL does have an
infectous component - all these licensing issues are theoretically very
interesting (especially for people who like discussions for the fun of
it :-) but not very important:
Once you see misuse of open source code, it's time to determine if the
license was violated and what to do. In many cases - most I know about -
a decision will be based upon the circumstances, especially the
violators intentions.
I digress, I'm afraid, but it's late...
Back to the point.
Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and change what we did earlier.
In this case, there are parts of bacula published under the GPL, and
these files are available now and will remain available for a long time.
Everybody should accept the license, but this can't be enforced.
The result is that it's impractical to try to limit the distribution and
use of the existing code, and I think it is clear that it is not Kerns
intention to change this in the future when he modifies the source.
That's the situation, and thus I think that it would be very hard, even
near impossible, to try and enforce any sort of payment for any use of
the source.
We need to rely on people's sense of fairness if we expect any sort of
contribution, be it financial or in development efforts. (Thus my
assumption that it would be more successfull to appeal to developers,
implementors and consultants than to the book-keeping people.)
Back to your example - I think such a (mis)use of bacula source and
ideas would not only be hard to detect and harder to prevent, but it
would be a better solution to offer something else, apart from the open
source ideas, to the user: The right to use the (trademark) bacula in
connection with the product, mention of the name on bacula-related web
sites, and, as Kern suggested, more reliable support through (part of)
the bacula community.
I hope this long-winded pamphlet was at least partly clear enough...
Arno
__Martin
--
IT-Service Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arno Lehmann http://www.its-lehmann.de
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
