On Tuesday 11 September 2007 16:17, José Luis Tallón wrote: > Hi all, and sorry to jump it a bit late > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > IANAL, but as far as I know, adding a license exception to one's license > (i.e., "linking with this other license is explicitly allowed") does not > modify the license itself.
Yes, correct. > > However, I do understand the point that other libraries that are to be > linked in are also being linked to the "incompatible" library ... Please > note that this is becoming more a philosophical problem than anything else. > As I see it: if it is my code which is linking in other people's > libraries, it's only my linking with each library which needs to be > fixed. As long as OpenSSL does not require being linked *with* (not: > alongside) other library, it should all be ok. Yes, correct anyone can link anything with any code they want. The only problem comes if you then want to distribute the code -- that is where the GPL becomes very restrictive. You cannot *distribute* binary that contains GPL code copyrighted by 3rd parties if it is linked with Open Source software that the FSF deems is incompatible with the GPL because of trivial "advertising clauses" which they claim are "onerous". If Bacula adds modifications to the license, this in no way restricts the use of the software -- it can only increase the use. The modifications obviously cannot apply to 3rd party GPLed software. > > (again, IANAL) > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > In either case, thank you all for your efforts in creating the best > backup system ever Thanks. I'm working on making it *far* better ... :-) Kern > > > J.L. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
