Kern I will just make a couple of point, I don't want to try to convince you of anything, I've done this for years in the past and I am not in the proselytism game right now.
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 12:17 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > 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. I am sorry you did not understand the GPL when you chose that, but I assure you that many people choose the GPL exactly because it is a reciprocal license, exactly because it incarnate the copyleft idea. If you think about it you will find that, to protect freedom, there is no other way. > I think that taking a close look at NSS would be well worth our while > given your work on the compatibility layer ... I hope it can help your project. > 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 -- You can ask for copyright assignment, legal maintainability is really important, and I am glad you are thinking about it, so many don't. There are many ways to achieve that though, accepting third party code does not mean you necessarily loose control, if control i sso important to you. > i.e. it locks Bacula into GPLv2+ and the + is like writing a blank > check to someone. Here I have to say something, sorry for the rant, but I am strong believer in GPLvX+, I have participated in the GPLv3 drafting and in samba we used GPLv2+ (and now GPLv3+) for long. Saying it is a blank check is an enormous exageration, a blank check means another party can do whatever it wants. Well this is not true, the FSF has made legally binding public promises on the content of any GPL version, it may change very little in what a GPL version may introduce, the fundamental 4 freedoms can't be changed. There may be some more conditions, some more "restrictions", as you say, to protect freedom. But GPLv3 showed us it was able to even achieve greater license compatibility (GPLv3 is now compatible with the Apache license for example). The "or any later" clause is important for the legal maintainability of the code, without it, you have to explicitly re-license all the code each time you want to adopt a new version, a process that is costly and burdensome. And is not at all a blank check. In case you find a "newer" license something you really can't accept all you have to do is change the license from "or any later" to "only", a process much easier than a license upgrade usually, but more importantly a process you need to do only if something really bad happen (which is unlikely anyway and so much less probable). > 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 theOpenSSL 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. I think it is indeed a matter of points of view. For example, the OpenSSL people know since many years that their license is incompatible with the GPL, and some may ask why they didn't change the license to be compatible. As you can see I can make the same argument you make against the GPL and turn it against the OpenSSL License, the rationale is that nobody is to blame, they are just incompatible license, both parties need to agree to make any change. Now the FSF has taken a step and made a new version that is more compatible with other licenses, maybe it is time for mothers to stop fearing the GPL, and let their code to be linked with GPL programs (yes I imply some groups keep their free license incompatible with the GPL on purpose). I hope my rant was not too long :) and I hope you can make the best decision for your project. So long, Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
