On Thursday 27 April 2006 00:16, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: > 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?
In my opinion you would not have to release your proprietary source code. It is much the same as if you use gcc to compile your own code, that does not "contaminate" (as Microsoft likes to claim) your code. Anyway, that is how I feel about it. It might help me be more specific (and is of an interest to me) if you would describe in detail your project, which if it is confidential, you could do off-list (I prefer on-list though). > 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). Yes, that would be fine. That is what I consider fair and correct. > > Is this a question for an IP lawyer, or do you have a sense for how the > rules apply in this case? If you are basing an important corporate decision on this, you might want to check with someone other than me. Lawyers are not always the best -- if I had more time, I would describe two cases that I was involved with that went to the Swiss Supreme Court. One, I was sure I would lose, but I won, the other I was sure I would win, but I lost. Both involved text that seemed totally clear to me (and to my lawyer). From what you have written, you won't have any problems from me for the use you describe. Just the same, I'd suggest looking carefully at the Free Software Site, and perhaps as them the question. Also perhaps some of the users on this list can shed more light on this particular aspect. > > 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. -- Best regards, Kern ("> /\ V_V ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
