Re: [Bacula-users] License
Op 20110825 om 06:38 schreef Mehma Sarja: Need a clarification on Bacula license for a backup appliance that I am contemplating. Would I be able to sell such a device or service? ( AFAIK first reply to mailing list ) Is the silence a loud YES WE CAN! ??? -- EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License
On Aug 29, 2011, at 2:17 AM, Geert Stappers wrote: Op 20110825 om 06:38 schreef Mehma Sarja: Need a clarification on Bacula license for a backup appliance that I am contemplating. Would I be able to sell such a device or service? ( AFAIK first reply to mailing list ) Is the silence a loud YES WE CAN! ??? I think asking us for a legal opinion is not a good foundation for a business. -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org -- EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License
On 8/29/11 9:37 AM, Dan Langille wrote: On Aug 29, 2011, at 2:17 AM, Geert Stappers wrote: Op 20110825 om 06:38 schreef Mehma Sarja: Need a clarification on Bacula license for a backup appliance that I am contemplating. Would I be able to sell such a device or service? ( AFAIK first reply to mailing list ) Is the silence a loud YES WE CAN! ??? I think asking us for a legal opinion is not a good foundation for a business. Users can, however, relay experiences in using Bacula under a similar circumstance as I aspire to. Mehma -- EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License
On 08/29/2011 06:57 PM, Mehma Sarja wrote: On 8/29/11 9:37 AM, Dan Langille wrote: On Aug 29, 2011, at 2:17 AM, Geert Stappers wrote: Op 20110825 om 06:38 schreef Mehma Sarja: Need a clarification on Bacula license for a backup appliance that I am contemplating. Would I be able to sell such a device or service? ( AFAIK first reply to mailing list ) Is the silence a loud YES WE CAN! ??? I think asking us for a legal opinion is not a good foundation for a business. Users can, however, relay experiences in using Bacula under a similar circumstance as I aspire to. Mehma There's two things, you need to make available the bacula source code you are using inside your service/device to all of your customers. AFGPLv3 requirements. And for all legal question, I would advise you to ask them to the legal team of the fsfe.org which has full right the bacula community code. They are not your enemies, and can certainly better than anyone else here help you in your quest. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member Ambassador GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! And you'll get a free Love Thy Logs t-shirt when you download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] License
Need a clarification on Bacula license for a backup appliance that I am contemplating. Would I be able to sell such a device or service? Mehma -- EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:14, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: Hi, Not sure if I should send this to the devel list or this list, but here goes: I'm a bit confused about the different bacula components and their respective licenses. From what I can tell, the win32 binary has an extremely open and unrestrictive license, but most related components (including the recently added encryption plugin) appear to be GPL. Can the win32 client be embedded in a commercial application? Are there other issues with this that I'm missing? Many thanks for your advice or insight. The following link may help clarify a few of the points that were brought up in this discussion on the Bacula list. It is an interview with Richard Stallman discussing the proposed GPL version 3, but much if not most of what he says applies to version 2 as well. http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/KW2dwDGbQ3dGkS/Richard-Stallman-Sets-the-Free-Software-Record-Straight.xhtml -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
Hugo Schlebnik wrote: I am indeed talking about the binary, not the source. I have no intention of modifying the bacula client code, but rather integrating it (as is) into a larger, proprietary application. Would that mean I'd have to release source code for the larger application? If so, that's a bit of a deal-breaker, which would be a shame, since I'd really like to use bacula. My understanding of the GPL is that you're only required to make the source code available for the GPL'd application, and any changes you made to source code, if you're distributing the binary generated from those changes to 3rd party. Where it gets complicated is when you have a propietry program interacting with a GPL'd program. If the complete package is being sold to 3rd parties then you may or may not need to release the proprietry program under the GPL as well; it depends on the level of the relationship between the two components. Merely invoking a GPL'd application (e.g. Bacula) would probably not require you to make the source available. If you're modifying GPL'd software for purely personal/internal use then I don't think you have to make any changes available to anyone else, so long as you're not distributing binaries generated from GPL'd code (modified or otherwise). I'm assuming the same would be true if you were modifying GPL'd software as a contract programmer, where the modified code is only going to be used within the company you're contracting for. Anyways, the GPL FAQ probably tells you what you need to know: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html The bit on Mere Aggreation is most likely what you want to read. -- Chris Crowther begin:vcard fn:Chris Crowther n:Crowther;Chris org:JM Crowther Ltd adr:;;23 Longship Way;Maldon;Essex;CM9 6UG;UK email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Developer tel;work:+44 (0)1621 850295 / +44 (0)845 8900997 tel;fax:+44 (0)1621 850300 tel;home:+44 (0)1621 857034 tel;cell:+44 (0)7803 168740 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.jm-crowther.co.uk/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Jason Martin wrote: I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source be available to people who use the modified binary. And the original source too. This has caused a number of problems in embedded linux systems (small adsl/broadband routers. etc) where the manufacturers have tweaked things and then failed ot make the tweaks available. In one case (Broadcom), a modified linux kernel was made available, but not the modified GCC or a couple of other critical parts required to actually make it compilable. I don't believe this one has been fully resolved yet. It's worth looking at gpl-violations.org from time to time. AB --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: I am indeed talking about the binary, not the source. I have no intention of modifying the bacula client code, but rather integrating it (as is) into a larger, proprietary application. Would that mean I'd have to release source code for the larger application? If so, that's a bit of a deal-breaker, which would be a shame, since I'd really like to use bacula. IANAL. GPL GPL2 licensing rules apply to GPL and _derived_ software. If you have a proprietary system with GPL utilities on it, my understanding is that you would need to supply the source code (and the build environment for the binaries under GPL2), or make a written offer of same for download (or upon request) IE: Assuming you're just pulling in precompiled bacula binaries, then all you'd need to supply is the source kit for those binaries from the same site. Again IANAL - speak to your lawyers to verify this. (Hmmm, does GPL2 mean that the compilation tools for win32 binaries need to be made available too? This could be a problem if they're not OSS) AB --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Jason Martin wrote: If you have anyone to answer to other than yourself, you should ask *your* lawyer. 'The mailing list said so' probably won't be a good answer if you are under review because something went sour. All we can do is tell you what we think that lawyer *should* say, which could (although hopefully won't) be quite different than what is actually said. Be very careful what questions you ask when dealing with lawyers. It's pretty common for them to throw up all possible objections to something. IE: don't ask Can we do this?, ask How do we do this? AB --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
Wow, thanks for all the advice, everyone.Kern, it's good to know you're okay with this idea. That's obviously important from a moral standpoint, even if it's not a critical factor legally. I'm pretty limited in what I can disclose about the project right now, thanks to an NDA, but that may change as things move forward. I will discuss this, casually, with our legal folks. If any revelations come from that, I'll be sure to let you all know.On 4/27/06, Alan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Jason Martin wrote: If you have anyone to answer to other than yourself, you should ask *your* lawyer. 'The mailing list said so' probably won't be a good answer if you are under review because something went sour. All we can do is tell you what we think that lawyer *should* say, which could (although hopefully won't) be quite different than what is actually said.Be very careful what questions you ask when dealing with lawyers. It's pretty common for them to throw up all possible objections tosomething.IE: don't ask Can we do this?, ask How do we do this?AB
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
The easy way to go when releasing unmodified GPL binaries is to include the source with the application somehow. This fulfills you obligation 100% assuming you have not made any alterations to the source.Cheers, EricOn 4/27/06, Hugo Schlebnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow, thanks for all the advice, everyone.Kern, it's good to know you're okay with this idea. That's obviously important from a moral standpoint, even if it's not a critical factor legally. I'm pretty limited in what I can disclose about the project right now, thanks to an NDA, but that may change as things move forward. I will discuss this, casually, with our legal folks. If any revelations come from that, I'll be sure to let you all know.
[Bacula-users] License question
Hi,Not sure if I should send this to the devel list or this list, but here goes:I'm a bit confused about the different bacula components and their respective licenses. From what I can tell, the win32 binary has an extremely open and unrestrictive license, but most related components (including the recently added encryption plugin) appear to be GPL. Can the win32 client be embedded in a commercial application? Are there other issues with this that I'm missing?Many thanks for your advice or insight.Hugo
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:14, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: Hi, Not sure if I should send this to the devel list or this list, but here goes: It is probably more of a question for the devel list, but I don't see any point to change it now ... First let me preface this by saying that I speak only for code which I have copyrighted. There are other copyright holders of source code used in Bacula: Microsoft, ATT, Free Software Foundation just to mention a few. I cannot speak for them. I'm a bit confused about the different bacula components and their respective licenses. From what I can tell, the win32 binary has an extremely open and unrestrictive license, but most related components (including the recently added encryption plugin) appear to be GPL. That's an interesting question because I'm not exactly what license covers the Win32 binary (probably GPL) -- assuming you *really* mean the binary and not the source. I'm not sure exactly why you say that the Win32 binary has an extemely open and unrestrictive license. I have not intended it to be different from any other component, except that we are subject to a few minor restraints from Microsoft (see below). Oh, I just went and read the License.txt that is installed on Win32, and it is clearly wrong. I think that was just a dummy file that I forgot to fix :-( Without giving it much thought, assuming that the Win32 binary is covered by GPL version 2, I think that a binary can be pretty much used as is as long as you don't modify it. Now if you are talking about the source code that is used to build the Win32 binary, that is a different question. 99% of the code has the appropriate license agreement at the top of it, and the gory (and important details) are in the main directory in a file named LICENSE despite what License.txt may say since License.txt was never meant to apply to the source code. I generally use GPL version 2 (not just any version), but there are a number of modifications that I have made, mostly to clarify certain points. I recently added a modification that states that in the Win32 binary, we use certain proprietary Windows code, with their permission, of course, and unlike GPLed code we are not allowed to distribute the source for the Windows code, but it is available on public Microsoft servers. Can the win32 client be embedded in a commercial application? Are there other issues with this that I'm missing? The simple answer concerning using the binary is: yes. I'm not opposed to Bacula being used in commercial applications. However, if you do use it, and you modify the GPL'ed code (not all of which is mine), which probably applies to the binary as well, you are required to make the modifications publicly available or you are in violation of the license. The idea (at least my idea) is not to restrict you, but to ensure that if you use the code, you modify it, and you distribute/sell it that you give back to the project. That said, I have tried to use the LGPL license on the parts of Bacula that might be used in a commercial application that wants to interface to Bacula. This is so that you can modify this LGPL code or use it embedded in your code and you are not required to make your changes or your code publicly available. If I've overlooked some interface code, just let me know. Many thanks for your advice or insight. Thanks for pointing out the binary License.txt problem. I hope the above is clear and doesn't discourage you from using Bacula. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
The other thing to note is that bacula is a (tm) so to use it commercially you must also get permission to use the NAME either directly from Kern/John or through an implied license IF you are 100% compatible with bacula ( that's my impression Kern, feel free to correct ). http://www.bacula.org/dev-manual/Bacula_Freque_Asked_Questi.html#SECTION0003417000Cheers, EricOn 4/26/06, Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:14, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: Hi, Not sure if I should send this to the devel list or this list, but here goes:It is probably more of a question for the devel list, but I don't see any point to change it now ...
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:08:06PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: The simple answer concerning using the binary is: yes. I'm not opposed to Bacula being used in commercial applications. However, if you do use it, and you modify the GPL'ed code (not all of which is mine), which probably applies to the binary as well, you are required to make the modifications publicly available or you are in violation of the license. The idea (at least my I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source be available to people who use the modified binary. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic for a clarification. -Jason Martin -- The Microsoft Motto: We're the leaders, wait for us! This message is PGP/MIME signed. pgpdEbiRaD7Qt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:25, Eric Warnke wrote: The other thing to note is that bacula is a (tm) so to use it commercially you must also get permission to use the NAME either directly from Kern/John or through an implied license IF you are 100% compatible with bacula ( that's my impression Kern, feel free to correct ). http://www.bacula.org/dev-manual/Bacula_Freque_Asked_Questi.html#SECTION000 3417000 Yes, thanks for pointing that out. The main idea is not to keep people from referring to Bacula or making certain use of the name, but I would like to avoid confusion that could happen if someone uses the name Bacula for an incompatible or modified product. Cheers, Eric On 4/26/06, Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:14, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: Hi, Not sure if I should send this to the devel list or this list, but here goes: It is probably more of a question for the devel list, but I don't see any point to change it now ... -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:29, Jason Martin wrote: On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:08:06PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: The simple answer concerning using the binary is: yes. I'm not opposed to Bacula being used in commercial applications. However, if you do use it, and you modify the GPL'ed code (not all of which is mine), which probably applies to the binary as well, you are required to make the modifications publicly available or you are in violation of the license. The idea (at least my I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source be available to people who use the modified binary. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic for a clarification. I don't interpret the text in the same way you do, probably because it is not very clearly written. I'm not sure that text reflects what the GPL really says, but in any case, the text *seems* to say that if you release a modified binary, the person purchasing the binary may freely distribute it, and anyone who gets such a redistributed binary has the right to have the source, which effectively says that anyone can have it. Anyway, it isn't worth arguing about since I try to be as non-restrictive as possible. -- Best regards, Kern ( /\ V_V --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:29, Jason Martin wrote: I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source be available to people who use the modified binary. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic for a clarification. I don't interpret the text in the same way you do, probably because it is not very clearly written. I'm not sure that text reflects what the GPL really says, but in any case, the text *seems* to say that if you release a modified binary, the person purchasing the binary may freely distribute it, and anyone who gets such a redistributed binary has the right to have the source, which effectively says that anyone can have it. Oh no I agree about that part, I was just pointing out that the GPL doesn't *mandate* that anyone contribute back to the original project. The GPL doesn't allow the seller to prohibit re-contribution back to the original project, now does it mandate that the seller contribute back. -Jason Martin -- Busier than a cat trapped in a dog pound. This message is PGP/MIME signed. pgpIHjYzFwYuE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
Thanks for all this information. I'll try to clarify a bit more and see if that helps shed some light: I am indeed talking about the binary, not the source. I have no intention of modifying the bacula client code, but rather integrating it (as is) into a larger, proprietary application. Would that mean I'd have to release source code for the larger application? If so, that's a bit of a deal-breaker, which would be a shame, since I'd really like to use bacula. Beyond that, if any modifications were made to the bacula code (either server-side or client-side) through work on this project, they would of course be contributed back to the bacula project (assuming you wanted them, of course). Is this a question for an IP lawyer, or do you have a sense for how the rules apply in this case? Thanks again. On 4/26/06, Jason Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: On Wednesday 26 April 2006 22:29, Jason Martin wrote: I believe the GPL only requires that changes made to the source be available to people who use the modified binary. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic for a clarification. I don't interpret the text in the same way you do, probably because it is not very clearly written.I'm not sure that text reflects what the GPL really says, but in any case, the text *seems* to say that if you release a modified binary, the person purchasing the binary may freely distribute it, and anyone who gets such a redistributed binary has the right to have the source, which effectively says that anyone can have it.Oh no I agree about that part, I was just pointing out that theGPL doesn't *mandate* that anyone contribute back to the originalproject. The GPL doesn't allow the seller to prohibit re-contribution back to the original project, now does itmandate that the seller contribute back.-Jason Martin--Busier than a cat trapped in a dog pound.This message is PGP/MIME signed.
Re: [Bacula-users] License question
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:16:30PM -0400, Hugo Schlebnik wrote: Is this a question for an IP lawyer, or do you have a sense for how the rules apply in this case? If you have anyone to answer to other than yourself, you should ask *your* lawyer. 'The mailing list said so' probably won't be a good answer if you are under review because something went sour. All we can do is tell you what we think that lawyer *should* say, which could (although hopefully won't) be quite different than what is actually said. -Jason Martin -- I distinctly remember forgetting that. This message is PGP/MIME signed. pgpaiocILeUNS.pgp Description: PGP signature
