On 27.02.20 14:44, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote: > Hello, > > czw., 27 lut 2020 o 14:34 Sven Hartge <s...@svenhartge.de > <mailto: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?
No, my assessment was a bit overly hasty, I apologize. > 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. I think the best action for any distribution would be ship the baculatar-part as example for the local admin who wishes to create the needed container image themselves instead of trying to ship anything inside the packages. I have to meditate a bit over this and conference with my Co-Mainainer Carsten on that issue. Grüße, Sven. _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
