Hugo Schlebnik wrote: > I am indeed talking about the binary, not the source. I have no > intention of modifying the bacula client code, but rather integrating it > (as is) into a larger, proprietary application. Would that mean I'd > have to release source code for the larger application? If so, that's a > bit of a deal-breaker, which would be a shame, since I'd really like to > use bacula.
My understanding of the GPL is that you're only required to make the source code available for the GPL'd application, and any changes you made to source code, if you're distributing the binary generated from those changes to 3rd party. Where it gets complicated is when you have a propietry program interacting with a GPL'd program. If the complete package is being sold to 3rd parties then you may or may not need to release the proprietry program under the GPL as well; it depends on the level of the relationship between the two components. Merely invoking a GPL'd application (e.g. Bacula) would probably not require you to make the source available. If you're modifying GPL'd software for purely personal/internal use then I don't think you have to make any changes available to anyone else, so long as you're not distributing binaries generated from GPL'd code (modified or otherwise). I'm assuming the same would be true if you were modifying GPL'd software as a contract programmer, where the modified code is only going to be used within the company you're contracting for. Anyways, the GPL FAQ probably tells you what you need to know: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html The bit on "Mere Aggreation" is most likely what you want to read. -- Chris Crowther
begin:vcard fn:Chris Crowther n:Crowther;Chris org:J&M Crowther Ltd adr:;;23 Longship Way;Maldon;Essex;CM9 6UG;UK email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Developer tel;work:+44 (0)1621 850295 / +44 (0)845 8900997 tel;fax:+44 (0)1621 850300 tel;home:+44 (0)1621 857034 tel;cell:+44 (0)7803 168740 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.jm-crowther.co.uk/ version:2.1 end:vcard
