On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:35:30PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Well, as long as we have no 3rd party GPLed code in Bacula, which is what I > am > currently planning, we can always modify the license later. > > Currently there is zero downside that I can see to maintaining the license > GPLv2. It doesn't restrict users from using GPLv3 code. There is no > restriction on mixing any kind of software licenses, the restriction comes in > distributing the code, and normally users are not going to distribute Bacula > code with their own GPLv3 additions.
That seems a correct analysis. It is a per-project policy decision whether to set things up so that others can distribute the code, or not. If you choose to prohibit redistribution in the case where someone downstream adds GPLv3 code, that is your right. Some people may get a surprise though. > > > Yes, I think plugin capability is quite important, but it has not been > > > voted very high by our users compared to other projects. We do have the > > > ability to invoke a script at the beginning of a backup and at the end, > > > which partially resolves the problem, but what we don't have is the > > > ability to invoke a script on a file by file basis and to read from that > > > script for backup or write to the script for a restore. > > > > Please give us a ping when you get around to implementing this. > > Yes, of course. See you round! Thanks for the chat. -- Dan Shearer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openchange.org/listinfo/devel
