W dniu 22 sierpnia 2010 16:54 użytkownik Kern Sibbald <[email protected]>napisał:
> 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). > Well, I don't want to start another Holly War on opensource licensing and derived work. I respect others point of view or beliefs. > 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. > I want to release it as dual license GPL/EULA, but Bacula won't accept any other license then AGPLv3. But I've found a legal solution for it so it is not a problem for me now. > 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. > Does it mean that Bacula Enterprise Edition accept other plugin licenses? > Best regards, > > Kern > > Regards, -- Radosław Korzeniewski [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
