On Saturday 27 August 2005 00:20, Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Martin Simmons wrote:
> > E.g. suppose you have written a non-trivial non-GPL data analysis tool
> > with plugins for different input formats. Now if you want to add a
> > plugin for Bacula volumes, but you won't be able to use any of the Bacula
> > volume reading code because it will taint your whole tool with the GPL,
> > even though you are not really make a "derived work" of Bacula (just a
> > small part of it that could have been a library).
>
> I think we're approaching a region where you need a lawyer to come to a
> conclusion.
>
> That is something I've seen before when GPL licensing was discussed.
> Other Open Source licenses will have similar effects, but I don't follow
> these discussions that long, usually.
>
> Now, Martin, I think you might be absolutely right. But, and I guess
> you'd admit that, your example is not very realistic at the moment.
>
> The simple solution in such a case would be to ask Kern to grant a
> license for that purpose, and I think he would.
Yes, of course.
>
> The alternative is not to ask, and probably it would take quite a while
> until somebody notices.
>
> More important - while I freely admit that the GPL does have an
> infectous component - all these licensing issues are theoretically very
> interesting (especially for people who like discussions for the fun of
> it :-) but not very important:
>
> Once you see misuse of open source code, it's time to determine if the
> license was violated and what to do. In many cases - most I know about -
> a decision will be based upon the circumstances, especially the
> violators intentions.
>
> I digress, I'm afraid, but it's late...
>
> Back to the point.
>
> Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and change what we did earlier.
> In this case, there are parts of bacula published under the GPL, and
> these files are available now and will remain available for a long time.
> Everybody should accept the license, but this can't be enforced.
Just to be clear, I can change the license at any time. The only restriction
is that currently, I use a small number of subroutines GPLed by other people,
so the license must remain Open Source, or I must replace those routines.
I state this as a hypothetical possibility. I am generally happy with the GPL
including its infectious nature, so I have no intention of moving away from
GPL. It will be interesting to see what GPL version 3 gives us. Note unlike
a lot of other GPL code, most of the current Bacula code is licensed under
GPL version 2 only.
>
> The result is that it's impractical to try to limit the distribution and
> use of the existing code, and I think it is clear that it is not Kerns
> intention to change this in the future when he modifies the source.
No. My intention has never been to limit the distribution of the source code
-- just the contrary. It is Open Source, and I would like it to remain Open
Source forever.
>
> That's the situation, and thus I think that it would be very hard, even
> near impossible, to try and enforce any sort of payment for any use of
> the source.
I agree for the source. However, perhaps for the binaries, it is different.
>
> We need to rely on people's sense of fairness if we expect any sort of
> contribution, be it financial or in development efforts. (Thus my
> assumption that it would be more successfull to appeal to developers,
> implementors and consultants than to the book-keeping people.)
>
> Back to your example - I think such a (mis)use of bacula source and
> ideas would not only be hard to detect and harder to prevent, but it
> would be a better solution to offer something else, apart from the open
> source ideas, to the user: The right to use the (trademark) bacula in
> connection with the product, mention of the name on bacula-related web
> sites, and, as Kern suggested, more reliable support through (part of)
> the bacula community.
>
> I hope this long-winded pamphlet was at least partly clear enough...
>
> Arno
>
> > __Martin
--
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
