On Friday 07 September 2007 12:45, Dan Shearer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 08:13:42PM +0930, Dan Shearer wrote: > > There are two small doors that could be left open for the future: Bacula > > could implement "or later version" in its forthcoming modified GPL, and > > OpenChange could dual-license its work with, say, the GPL. This would be > > ^L
Oh, I missed the LGPL part. If your libraries are licensed LGPL or dual GPL/LGPL, there is no problem in using them with Bacula and the potential problem is completely resolved. I don't want to discourage you from dual licensing with LGPL, but please realize when you do so any such code can be used in proprietary software. That isn't necessarily bad, in fact, it ensures greater use of any such libraries. The FSF licenses glibc with LGPL. However, if you want to keep your software from being used in proprietary programs, you might want to use a dual license as you suggest, but the second license could be one that would require that any modifications to the source must be made available. I am not an expert on other OpenSource licenses that require distributing changes to the code, but I will be looking into this over the next few months. If you look at www.opensource.org, it will give you an idea of all the licenses that are available. I found two or three that might be suitable for Bacula if ever I decide to change -- for the moment, we are going GPLv2 + exception for OSI libraries. By the way, I think Qt is dual licensed. Regards, Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
