|
Hello,
Well, I cannot be so impolite and tell you that you are way off
:-)
However, please see below ...
On 15.04.2015 15:23, Raymond Burns Jr. wrote:
1. I think this is good news. Not really sure.
Sounds to me as work will continue as normal, with the possible
assistance from another Bacula maintainer for binaries.
Yes, this is, in my opinion, good news. Nothing really changes
significantly, except that I can deal directly with any copyright
violations.
2. This is where I have questions.
Assuming the FSFE was the legal protection during the
Barios lawsuit, the final outcome was not 100% pleasant for
the Bacula team. That is an assumption.
The assumption is not correct. Though FSFE was the legal protection
of the community version during the Bareos lawsuit, the lawsuit was
between Bacula Systems and Bareos and did not directly involve the
FSFE copyright.
Bacula Systems (and the Bacula community team) is happy with the
outcome. I assume that Bareos is as well.
So this either means:
a. Kern and team can protect Bacula community Code for much
less cost.
There is no issue of cost. It is more an issue of the situation
having changed (e.g. I have many more resources to manage Bacula
than previously) so dealing with copyright issues directly will be
more efficient.
b. Kern and team can find protection that will render
better results in a future lawsuit.
While the above is possible, it was not a significant motivation in
the change regarding the FSFE. In addition, I will be surprised if
there is a future lawsuit. The other point here is that the change
concerns the FSFE and Kern personally, but not Bacula Systems.
c. The future will be unstable for community as the only
viable protection is through Enterprise edition. (This idea
doesn't coincide with a 7.2.0 release, but does allow
community to remain free since 7.0.5 is so stable)
The above is definitely not true. The future for the community is
more development, more features. I do not look at the change as
providing more viable protection since it is not really a question
of protection. The question is who is the legal protector of
Bacula, a big organization such as the FSFE, with many priorities
probably more important than Bacula (my assumption) or is the legal
protector someone who has spent 15 year working on Bacula and close
to the project? In 2006 my choice was the FSFE, because I was
over-my-head with licenses and legal issues. I do not regret that
choice, but in 2015, my choice is to rely on myself and those close
to me who support Bacula.
Thanks for your comments. I hope my response provides the answers
you want :-)
Best regards,
Kern
Please tell me I'm way off, and "c." is DEFINITELY not
correct.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM Kern
Sibbald < k...@sibbald.com>
wrote:
Hello,
I would like to discuss the following topics:
1. Bacula Release Status
2. The FSFE and licenses
1. Bacula Release Status
As probably know, the latest release of Bacula is 7.0.5.
This release
has proved quite stable but there are a few bugs open on
it, and I am
working on them. I am also working on back porting bug
fixes and new
features from the Bacula Enterprise version 8.2.0. I hope
this work will
be complete sometime in June so that I can make a new
release (7.2.0) in
June or July of this year.
In addition, Bacula Systems has hired a new IT
Administrator who will
begin in May. Part of his time will be devoted to
improving the Bacula
community web site as well as providing binary packages
for the
community. Providing binary packages for the community has
been an on
going project of mine, which has been delayed due to lack
of man-power.
By the way, the new IT Administrator has been working with
Bacula for a
long time and is well known to the community.
2. The FSFE and licenses
I would like to report that the FSFE has posted a
notification of
changed relations between the FSFE and myself. You can
find the
statement at the following link:
http://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150414-01.en.html
As many of you know in 2006, I signed a Fiduciary License
Agreement
(FLA) that gave the FSFE the exclusive copyright for the
Bacula.org
software. That means that they had the responsibility to
protect the
software. In 2006, I felt that the the Bacula project
needed protection
and guidance of the FSFE and their FLA process, and I was
pleased to
have their help. As the project has grown and become more
global and
solid, I feel that I can more efficiently manage this
responsibility
myself, and I thank the FSFE for their help over the
years.
The Bacula.org software that has been released, will
always remain Free
Software, and it is not possible for anyone to change that
fact. I have
been writing and releasing free software and open source
software since
1972, and as I have stated many times, I am and will
remain a very
strong supporter and creator of open source software, and
future
Bacula.org community software will always be open source.
My goal is to have the Bacula.org code covered by FLAs (or
their
equivalent) that are clear and consistent. In fact, due
to significant
FLA updating work I did last year and early this year with
lots of help
and understanding from the Bacula contributors (thank
you), I believe
that all known issues are already resolved and I continue
to work FSFE.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to either
post them to
the bacula-users list if they are general or directly to
me at kern (at)
sibbald (dot) com if they are specific to you or you
prefer to keep them
private.
Best regards,
Kern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM
EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2
standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM
through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual-
event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
bacula-us...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
