"Kern Sibbald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Shane,
Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will
be
released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that
recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose is not to debate the
issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacula so that all
distributions can use it with OpenSSL or any other Open Source code
without
problems. Please excuse me if I provide you with a bit of my reasoning
and
thoughts -- the idea is to help you target responses so I can end up with
an
accpetable solution.
History:
Bacula originally used the GPL v2 license, but I added some modifications
to
it -- most if not all are (IMO) now contained in the GPL v3. However,
some
of my original modifications created objections with Debian, so I removed
them. In addition, Debian has an issue with distributing Bacula linked
with
OpenSSL and as a consequence, I added a modification to the GPL permitting
Debian to link Bacula with OpenSSL.
In more recent discussions with you, it seems that some of my
modifications to
the GPL (particularly the "Debian" clause) created a legal problem with
Fedora and hence Red Hat because the GPL v2 is incompatible with the
OpenSSL
license and because there are about 10-20 files in the Bacula source that
are
copyrighted by third-parties under the GPL, so by modifying my license, I
was
or could have been technically violating their licenses.
Well it is not a violation to have a mechanism to allow third parties to
link to openSSL. The third parties
would be violating licences by linking the work (assuming the FSF's linking
theories are in fact leagally sound),
however that is not your concern. What would be your concern is that
distributions are often not willing to
distribute the linked executables, for obvious reasons.
However, for you the ideal situation would be to get permission from the
copyright holders of the gpl'ed code you did not write to add a clause
allowing linking to openssl. If you could do that, then just add the clause
and everything is fine.
One other possibility you did not list in your message would be to convince
openSSL to change the licence to one that is GPL-compatible. This seems
highly unlikely (nearly impossible), but would finally fix this problem once
and for all. (The OpenSSL team feels the licence is GPL-compatible. It's
unclear why, as it has a BSD like-advertising clause that is infamous for
its GPL-incompatibility).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
