On 03/10/2014 10:10 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Exactly. The only reason why Bacula is able to pull off the proprietary >> version is that parallel to the FLA assigning the right to FSFE, all the >> contributors also signed a CA to Kern. > > Please point out where in the FSFE/Bacula Systems agreement the > license grant under B(1) is restricted to Bacula code. > >> The only reason why Bacula is able to pull off the proprietary >> version is that parallel to the FLA assigning the right to FSFE, all >> the contributors also signed a CA to Kern. > > I expect that most "Beneficiaries" who have signed FLAs with FSFE > would be rather surprised that "Bacula Systems S.A. respectively Kern > Sibbald has the right to use, reproduce, modify, redistribute and make > available software based on [their] contributions and resulting > software 'under other licenses' including under a proprietary license > as the Bacula Enterprise Version, in accordance with Section 3 (2) of > the FLA.".
Section B 1. cannot be interpreted without regard to the surrounding clauses. Section A and the preamble of Section B make it clear that the agreement concerns the Bacula software. -- Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild FSFE Fellowship Representative mailto:[email protected] xmpp:[email protected] http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
