On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:26, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:11:45AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > However, the "strict" interpretation would imply that the GPL is not fair (in > > the sense of compaints about the Novell - Microsoft contract), because I can > > distribute Bacula binaries because no where on any of the project sites do we > > distribute OpenSSL, but then the strict definition says that you cannot > > distribute Bacula because you have OpenSSL someplace on the distribution > > disks, or on your servers. > > I'm not familiar with the arguments that have been made in the case of > Novell-Microsoft. I'm certainly not aware of any argument why this aspect > of the GPL is not "fair" (=permitted under law) in a legal sense.
Well, one of the main objections to the Novell-Microsoft contract from what I understand is that Microsoft has promissed not to pursue Novell or Novell's customers for any violation of Microsoft patents. According to FSF, if I understand it right, this is unfair because it only protects a part of the GPL users and not everyone. Any such license should, according to them, apply to all or none. > > > > In recent times, it > > > appears that some Unix vendors such as Sun and Apple have also begun > > > distributing GNU software as part of systems whose cores are not licensed > > > compatibly with the GPL, with the FSF's tacit consent; that seems > > > ill-advised to me, but in any case the FSF's interpretations of the GPL > > > aren't binding on other copyright holders where those interpretations don't > > > follow logically from the text of the license. > > > I'm not sure Sun and Apple are so ill-advised. > > Sorry, I meant that I considered it ill-advised for the FSF to give their > tacit approval. :) I suspect that they are trying to be "practical" and don't want to chase after users in "technical" violations where there is no intent to subvert Open Source objectives. > > > > > By the way, just to be clear, I consider all this (not you guys but these > > > > license difficulties) to be a real pain. As long as the code is Open > > Source > > > > (i.e. I can get it, see it and modify it), I have no problem with it being > > > > linked with Bacula. > > > > Ah, well, that right there is sufficient for us to use as a license > > > exception grant. :) But of course it's not binding on other copyright > > > holders. > > > If that resoves the problems, great. Here is what I have just added to the > > LICENSE file -- hopefully it should be clear. Here is a snippet from the > > LICENSE file ... > > > ... > > License: > > For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2 > > this code is listed under Copyright Free Software Foundation > > Europe e.V. A small part of the code (less than 20 files) is > > copyrighted under the GPL by other people (FSF, Sun, ...). > > Oh. So this is a case where you've assigned copyright to FSFE? Does the > FSFE's copyright assignment procedure give you the right to continue > licensing your code under any license of your choice? Yes. They have a fiduciary licence arrangement with us (me). The project can decide what license it will use. There is a certain amount of mutual consentment, but there is no question that they are not going to (and did not when I told them) complain about removing modifications to the GPL. So it is clear, I do have the right to license the software anyway I want, but of course, if I license it differently, that would be a fork or a special deal, and might not hold for the project, which is dedicated to Open Source. FSFE also has certain rights and obligations. 99.9% of it is spelled out on their web site. > > > What follows is information from the authors of the code: > > > Linking: > > Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL. > > However, if configured with encryption Bacula does use the > > OpenSSL libraries which are, unfortunately, not compatible with > > GPL v2. To the best of our knowledge these libaries are not > > distributed with Bacula code because they are shared objects, and > > as such there is no conflict with the GPL according what I (Kern) > > understand in talking to FSFE, and in any case, for the code that > > I have written, I have no problems linking in OpenSSL (of course > > this does not speak for the few files in Bacula that are > > copyrighted by others). If you take a more severe stance on this > > issue, and you are going to distribute Bacula, then simply do not > > use the --with-openssl when building your package, and no use of > > OpenSSL even through dynamic linking will be included. > > ... > > Seems rather overwrought to me for inclusion in a license file. I would > suggest one of the following two approaches, either: > > In addition, for code copyright $foo, permission is explicitly granted to > distribute binaries dynamically linked with libraries distributed under > the OpenSSL license, even in cases where those libraries are distributed > together with the binaries. > > or: > > It is the understanding of $foo that the GPL permits distribution of > binaries dynamically linked to OpenSSL, even in cases where OpenSSL is > distributed together with the binaries. > > But if the code is copyright: FSFE, I don't know if this is something you > would have to clear with them first. I believe that doing what you suggest would modify the GPL, and I don't want to do that since it puts me according to FSFE and Red Hat in violation of other people's licenses. > > > > > The problem is that those third-party sources are linked into the Bacula > > > > binaries, and since they are licensed as GPL with no modifications, I > > > > cannot include them in a binary that has code that is licensed in a way > > > > that is incompatible with the GPL. Adding the OpenSSL exception to my > > > > license makes my code incompatible with the non-modified GPL, and > > > > hence I was violating the license on those 3rd party files > > > > (copyrighted by FSF, ATT, Sun, and a few others ...). > > > > To be clear here, it's not incompatible with the GPL for you to grant > > > additional linking permissions, which is what is being done. The only real > > > issue is that you can't grant such permission on behalf of other copyright > > > holders. > > > That is what I believed, but according to Fedora/Red Hat and FSFE, the fact > > that I have mixed code in a single binary that is "pure" GPL for which I > > (FSFE) do not hold the copyright and GPL with a modified license violates the > > license given by the authors of the "pure" GPL. Since that is serious to me, > > and I am not a lawyer, and I have first hand experience in how "illogical" > > (IMO) judges can be, I prefer to avoid the problem and not modify the GPL. > > So now Bacula is all "pure" GPL with no modifications with my explanations in > > notes rather than as modifications of the license. > > What I understand from your other message is that previously, you had > modified the text of the license under which the code was being distributed. > That in particular is something that you can't do without permission from > all of the copyright holders, AFAICS. Yes. > > Cheers, > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
