Thanks for all this information. I'll try to clarify a bit more and see if that helps shed some light:
I am indeed talking about the binary, not the source. I have no intention of modifying the bacula client code, but rather integrating it (as is) into a larger, proprietary application. Would that mean I'd have to release source code for the larger application? If so, that's a bit of a deal-breaker, which would be a shame, since I'd really like to use bacula.
Beyond that, if any modifications were made to the bacula code (either server-side or client-side) through work on this project, they would of course be contributed back to the bacula project (assuming you wanted them, of course).
Is this a question for an IP lawyer, or do you have a sense for how the rules apply in this case?
Thanks again.
On 4/26/06, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:29, Jason Martin wrote:
> > I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source
> > be available to people who use the modified binary.
> > See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
> > for a clarification.
>
> I don't interpret the text in the same way you do, probably because it is not
> very clearly written. I'm not sure that text reflects what the GPL really
> says, but in any case, the text *seems* to say that if you release a modified
> binary, the person purchasing the binary may freely distribute it, and anyone
> who gets such a redistributed binary has the right to have the source, which
> "effectively" says that anyone can have it.
Oh no I agree about that part, I was just pointing out that the
GPL doesn't *mandate* that anyone contribute back to the original
project. The GPL doesn't allow the seller to prohibit
re-contribution back to the original project, now does it
mandate that the seller contribute back.
-Jason Martin
--
Busier than a cat trapped in a dog pound.
This message is PGP/MIME signed.
