Kern Sibbald wrote: >> John Goerzen wrote: >>> Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look >>> and it looks good to me. >> This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: >> >>> Linking: >>> Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, >>> or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are >>> required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of >>> those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely >>> available to the public. >> [...] >>> Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their >>> copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These >>> software files are clearly marked as such. >> If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as >> OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed >> libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would >> violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't >> make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute >> Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. > > Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a > Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by > Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you > mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full > control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people.
If you link to OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries, you definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula; Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
