Hello, czw., 27 lut 2020 o 14:34 Sven Hartge <s...@svenhartge.de> napisał(a):
> On 27.02.20 14:26, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > As far as I can tell there is no GPL violation because all the source > > files needed to build that binary have been released, it is simply a > > matter of deleting the binary prior to re-distribution. > > This will suffice, I concur with the analysis of the situation by Radosław. > > We (Debian) will still need to sanitise the tar archive by repacking it > before distributing it, because the source code must be self-contained. > Sure, which does not mean any GPL binary distribution was violated, right? > > This also means we cannot easily ship the Docker plugin because during > the build stage no network access is allowed. > > The baculatar is not part of Bacula or Bacula Docker Plugin but it is a separate Docker container image. Bacula Docker Plugin does not require baculatar Docker image to run. It extends plugin features executing this container during Docker volume backup. In Bacula Enterprise it is distributed as a separate package. best regards -- Radosław Korzeniewski rados...@korzeniewski.net
_______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
