Hello, On Friday 07 September 2007 15:13, simo wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 20:15 +0930, 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 > > OpenChange links directly with GPLed (no L) code so making a small > portion LGPL will change nothing, the whole work will still be GPL. > > To the Bacula team, I'd like to make them aware that OpenSSL is not the > only SSL/TLS library, there are also NSS and GNUTLS, both these > libraries are licensed under the GPL (NSS it tri-licensed), currently > v2, but I am sure they will be GPLv3 compatible soon.
Yes, we are well of both NSS and GnuTLS. > > So if OpenSSL is the only piece that requires you to add exceptions (and > therefore makes you incompatible with any other GPL code) then you can > easily substitute it with NSS or GNUTLS. Unfortunately, it is not possible to "easily substitute" GnuTLS and I suspect the same is true of NSS since they are not 100% compatible with OpenSSL -- modifying Bacula to work with either would be a rather important project. Had we understood the fact that the GPL is a rather restrictive license when we started the OpenSSL project, we might have done it differently. Unfortunately, the restrictive nature of the GPL is little understood. > > Moreover, NSS is certified at a higher level of security than OpenSSL, > and recently in RH we made some work to make a compatibility layer to > make it easier to port OpenSSL applications to NSS. I think that taking a close look at NSS would be well worth our while given your work on the compatibility layer ... > > It would be really nice if bacula could be GPLv2+ without exceptions, it > would have access to a larger body of code and chance to use directly > libraries like the ones from openchange or libsmbclient instead of being > forced to run scripts and try to interpret output. Regardless of whatever happens, there is little chance that Bacula will ever again use any 3rd party GPLed code except perhaps in some libraries. This is because it removes the control of the licensing from the Bacula project -- i.e. it locks Bacula into GPLv2+ and the + is like writing a blank check to someone. I will look into dual licensing though. I personally find it absurd that a so called Open Source license can forbid using OpenSSL, which is Open Source as defined by OSI. I would not have a license like the OpenSSL license, but I don't consider it "onerous". I do consider it "onerous" that I didn't have a choice when I was using 3rd party GPLed code. That is my personal view, and I well understand that it is not everyone's view. Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
