Hello Shane, On Monday 24 September 2007 18:08, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote: > Hi Kern > > Kern Sibbald wrote: > > As far as I can see, the project has the following ways to proceed: > > 1. Add a modification to our existing license that permits linking with > > OpenSSL. > > I think this is the simplest clause, and it keeps well within the > precedent already accepted by the Bacula developers. > > I saw that there is an OpenSSL exception already proposed by the > Debian-legal list: > ==== > In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give > permission to link the code of portions of this program with the > OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each > individual source file, and distribute linked combinations > including the two. > You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects > for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify > file(s) with this exception, you may extend this exception to your > version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you > do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your > version. If you delete this exception statement from all source > files in the program, then also delete it here. > ==== > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html > > This seems like a quick and neat solution.
Thanks for looking up the above -- very interesting. However, the concept of deleting parts of the license don't appeal to me. I prefer the following which is a modification of my prior license that was accepted by Debian. The modification makes my prior license a bit more specific -- i.e. it restricts it to OSI licensed libraries. ===== Exception to the GPL: Linking: Bacula may be linked and distributed with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the license and hence source code of those non-GPLed libraries comply with the Open Source Definition as defined by the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). ======= I think this is much clearer than my original license, no less restrictive, avoids allowing someone to modify the license, but is a bit broader than the OpenSSL exception listed above, but corresponds to what I believed the GPL permitted when I originally chose the license for releasing the code. Does anyone have any objections to this? Regards, Kern > > Debian guys, anything to add? > > Regards > > Shane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
