On Thursday 07 June 2007 22:27, John Stoffel wrote: > > Kern> As you probably know, Bacula is released with a modified GNU GPL > Kern> licence. The Bacula license modifies the GPL to permit Bacula > Kern> to link to OpenSSL. This was necessary because using MySQL > Kern> libraries requires OpenSSL. This modification was suggested by > Kern> Debian to bring Bacula in compliance with their procedures. > > Sounds good so far. > > Kern> The problem comes from including pure GNU GPL code, which is not > Kern> compatible with the OpenSSL license, inside Bacula itself (there > Kern> are something like 8 such files). This works in the same way > Kern> that Debian would not allow Bacula as pure GNU GPL to link with > Kern> OpenSSL. If Bacula uses any pure GNU GPL code then that code > Kern> cannot be subject to the GNU GPL modifications, and that code > Kern> technically cannot linked and distributed with Bacula because of > Kern> OpenSSL. > > So which 8 files are these and can they be re-written? Maybe I'm > misunderstanding what you mean by "Pure GPL" code?
By pure GPL code, I meant code that has a non-modified GPL license (and is copyrighted by other people). > Are these files > from software released by the GNU organization? > > Kern> I suspect that a lot of GPL projects are in a similar situation, > Kern> but they do not explicitly point out the exception as Bacula > Kern> does. The real bummer here is that this issue was flagged by > Kern> someone involved in the Fedora packaging process. From what I > Kern> understand (I may be wrong here), Fedora and hence Red Hat will > Kern> not use Bacula because it uses some pure GPL code and OpenSSL > Kern> together raising potential license problems -- after the > Kern> problems with SCO and threats from Microsoft, their license > Kern> concerns are quite understandable. > > Sure, I can understand this. > > Kern> This is not a show-stopping issue because at least for the > Kern> moment, no author of pure GNU GPL code is lodging a complaint. > Kern> In addition as I mentioned in a previous email, this issue could > Kern> potentially be resolved by GPL v3 (due at the end of the month, > Kern> if I remember right) because it is compatible with the Apache > Kern> license, which is apparently what OpenSSL uses. > > Yup, Openssl uses the Apache license. > > Kern> In the mean time, until this problem is resolved, I've freezed > Kern> all inclusion of new GPL code (copyrighted by others) in Bacula. > > So basically, you're saying that people who contribute code to bacula > under the GPL license (which is what they need to do to get it > distributed) can't contribute anymore? > > Kern> The really complicated aspect of the above is that if you build > Kern> a program such as Bacula using all your own code, and you use > Kern> OpenSSL then in linking it, you just happen to drag some GPL'ed > Kern> code from some library directly into your binary (most > Kern> libararies are shared objects so do not become part of your > Kern> binary), as is the case with the statically linked Bacula used > Kern> in the rescue package, you are in violation of the GPL if you > Kern> distribute such a binary. > > Ah... now I see, it's the static linking part which causes the > problems. > > Kern> It seems that the only solution is that if you use GPL code, you > Kern> must use *all* GPL compatible code (not so easy), and if you > Kern> don't use it, you shouldn't even use the system libraries if > Kern> there is any chance they could be accidentally linked into your > Kern> program. > > It's an interesting point for sure. In this case, it all hinges on > the OpenSSL people and their use of the Apache license. Which I would > assume would actually be a bigger issue since Apache uses that license > and I'm SURE that there are alot more Apache setups out there than > Bacula. > > So how does Debian/Fedora work around Apache using the MySQL libraries > with the openssl stuff? Or do they just punt because Apache (as they > distribute it) only does dynamic linking? > > Honestly, I think you're over-reacting here to closing down > submissions from people. I never said that I was closing down submissions from people. I said that I was not accepting any GPL'ed code. Submissions come from people who have transferred their copyright. > Just make sure they understand that they > must make all submissions be part of the license that Bacula itself is > under, which is the modified GPLv2 license. > > I assume, since I haven't checked, that you are licensed like the > Linux Kernel to specifically use "GPLv2 only" and not the "GPLv2 or > later" clause that most GNU programs have? Yes, I don't believe in writing a blank check. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
