On Friday 26 August 2005 13:14, Alan Brown wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Kern Sibbald wrote: > >> Would you either restate this, or explain what you mean, because on > >> the face, this is patently false. > > > > You have just made a flat statement without any detail, and I am a bit > > tired of this subject, so I am not going to respond until I see some > > reasonable argument that indicated my error. You have also cut out > > content leading to this statement that is important to understand it. > > Kern: > > Using GPL does not mean all software is automatically GPL, that's the > mantra of the Halloween Document and is strictly FUD.
Yes, I understand this point well, which is why I used the words touch and use. Once non-GPL code touches -- is linked with or makes calls to GPL code, the non-GPL source code must be released. Even this point is rather complicated, because GPL code can be linked with non-GPL code if the non-GPL code is part of the OS (I forget the actual wording here). I had to modify the Bacula GPL license to be acceptable to Debian (I'm not in the least complaining as I respect their position). This was because OpenSSL, which for some reason is not OpenSource or at least was not at the time considered to be OpenSource by Debian (I didn't look into the details). Bacula never used OpenSSL at that time, but it "touched" it by the fact that Bacula was linked with the MySQL libraries which might require that OpenSSL be linked with Bacula. I modified my GPL license to make an exception for OpenSSL and all such software that provides the source code. Again, I'm just using this example to show how complicated it is sometimes mixing GPL and non-GPL code. I'm not at all complaining about Debian, and was very happy to make the change they requested particularly because I feel that GPL is too strict on this point. There are actually four modifications (if I remember right) that I have made to the GPL. None of them restrict rights of users given by the GPL. > > It's true that a lot of stuff being released as commercial software > contains GPL copyright violations(*), but most of these are accidental, > while there are a few quite deliberate ones, such as (lots and lots of) > ADSL firewall routers(**) which are embedded linux boxes using obfuscated > kernals and Busybox code, or GPS navigation systems which are embedded > linux systems.(***) > > Even the cases above, what's happened is that the companies concerned have > been forced to release the sourcecode for modifications to GCC, > modifications to Linux and Linux device drivers, but thay have NOT been > forced to give up the proprietary software which is the real gem in their > crown. This is exactly what I was referring to. If you play by the rules, those kinds of use of GPL require release of your source. > > If Bacula is GPL, then someone selling a proprietary system containing > Bacula must make the Bacula source available, including any modifications, > but they are not required to give over the source for their proprietary > software unless it is derived from GPL software, or incorporates full GPL > libraries - most common libraries are released under the LGPL, which > doesn't require source disclosure when used as Includes. Yes, this is fine if Bacula is a separate package. I wonder if users could legally sell proprietary Python packages that are called by Bacula? I could care less, but this seems to me to be such a gray area. > > > There is a pretty good set of FAQs on the subject at > www.gpl-violations.org/faq/index.html > > > (*) http://www.gpl-violations.org/ > > (**) Cisco (Linksys), Netgear, Dlink and others have all been caught doing > this, some companies even encrypted their linux images to hide the > fact. > > (***) Tomtom (www.tomtom.com) I've followed gpl-violations.org with a good amount of interest. Thanks for your comments and clarifications. -- Best regards, Kern ("> /\ V_V ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
