This one time, at band camp, Josh Triplett said: > John Goerzen wrote: > > Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look > > and it looks good to me. > > This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: > > > Linking: > > Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, > > or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are > > required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of > > those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely > > available to the public. > [...] > > Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their > > copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These > > software files are clearly marked as such. > > If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as > OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed > libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would > violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't > make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute > Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries.
This would need to be reviewed, I think, before being sure. It is my understanding that bacula uses a client/server implementation, so it is not clear to me that a lack of an excemption in the client code would prevent the server (with proper excemption) from linking to ssl. But as you say, this is not a freeness issue, just a useability one. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
