On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:06 -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > Kern Sibbald wrote: > > It is too bad we were not aware of these subtle licensing constraints a few > > years ago when Landon and I agreed on what encryption package to use. > > I'm not sure I entirely follow the issues with OpenSSL licensing. > What's the basic problem there? > Well, you can look at the 2 rather long threads referenced in my original post. My understanding is that the openssl license is incompatible with a vanilla GPL 2 license. Most of bacula is licensed with GPL 2 and an open ssl exception, but there are (soon to be were) a few files that lack the exception.
Whether openssl, or, strictly, the use of openssl libraries, is incompatible with GPL 3 is in dispute. As far as I can tell, no one thinks GPL 2 and openssl are compatible (except for general doubts about the legal status of GPL's prohibitions about linked code). This is my understanding only; it may be imperfect. IANAL. Ross ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
