On Sunday 22 August 2010 05:08:17 Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> According to fd_plugins.c allowed license for Bacula FD Plugins is AGPLv3
> only:
> (...)
> if (strcmp(info->plugin_license, "Bacula AGPLv3") != 0 &&
> strcmp(info->plugin_license, "AGPLv3") != 0) {
> (...)
> What is a reason of such restriction? FD plugin not necessarily has to be
> linked with Bacula code or someone have to use different license, even
> opensource but incompatible with AGPL. These plugins won't be registered
> with bacula-fd.
> I thought that Bacula Plugin API allow integrating some functionalities in
> a clean and independent way (without changing main Bacula code). I don't
> see any legal or technical limitation to use AGPL only plugins in Bacula.
>
> What do you think about it?
There are varying opinions on whether or not a plugin is a derived work or
not, but it is and has always been the opinion of the FSFE that a shared
object (as is the case for Bacula plugins) is a derived work, which means
that it must have the same license (or at least one that is compatible).
I personally am probably a bit more open to different possibilities, but I
firmly believe that if you are extending Bacula with a plugin, you should
give back to the community by providing it with your source code.
If you do not distribute your plugin then in reality you can use whatever
license you want, but if you distribute it, then it must be compatible.
If you want some other license, please contact Bacula Systems.
Best regards,
Kern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
