Bacula and OpenSSL
Hello Shane, Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose is not to debate the issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacula so that all distributions can use it with OpenSSL or any other Open Source code without problems. Please excuse me if I provide you with a bit of my reasoning and thoughts -- the idea is to help you target responses so I can end up with an accpetable solution. History: Bacula originally used the GPL v2 license, but I added some modifications to it -- most if not all are (IMO) now contained in the GPL v3. However, some of my original modifications created objections with Debian, so I removed them. In addition, Debian has an issue with distributing Bacula linked with OpenSSL and as a consequence, I added a modification to the GPL permitting Debian to link Bacula with OpenSSL. In more recent discussions with you, it seems that some of my modifications to the GPL (particularly the Debian clause) created a legal problem with Fedora and hence Red Hat because the GPL v2 is incompatible with the OpenSSL license and because there are about 10-20 files in the Bacula source that are copyrighted by third-parties under the GPL, so by modifying my license, I was or could have been technically violating their licenses. Most recently, I removed all modifications I had made to the GPL so the Bacula code written by myself and Bacula contributors is copyrighted under GPL v2. Where we are: As the Bacula source code currently stands, I expect that since it is pure GPL that it is acceptable as is to most distros. However, my understanding is that Debian will not be able to build the next version with OpenSSL due to their interpretation of the GPL. I find this a pity -- particularly because Debian was the first distro to officially package Bacula, and because I am also moving my systems over time to a Debian base. What I would like: I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL. How do we get there? It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives: 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL. 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. Does anyone see any other solutions that I am missing? If at all possible, I would like to get at least the direction on how to resolve this defined within the next several weeks. If alternative 2 is viable, it is something that I can probably do for release 2.2.0. Best regards, Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
Kern Sibbald wrote: 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. I don't believe that Debian provides legal views... My personal view is that GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license. The problematic part of the OpenSSL license is the BSD advertising clause: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) (From http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html) The only way this might be compatible with GPLv3 is if this clause was permitted by one of the clauses in GPLv3 section 7, Additional Terms. The only one under which it might fit is clause b): Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: ... * b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; (From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) However, this only permits requiring preservation of notices in the material. An advertisement mentioning OpenSSL is not part of OpenSSL, and so this clause does not make point 3. of the OpenSSL license GPLv3-compatible. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. This seems the correct way forward in the long term. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Kern Kern Sibbald wrote: What I would like: I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL. snip 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL. I understood that you require OpenSSL for Bacula due to user demand, so you could not replace it by GNUTLS entirely. Is that correct? 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. There was the possibility that the final GPLv3 might turn out compatible with the OpenSSL licence. However, the published GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL licence. To be sure I also confirmed this with Brett Smith at FSF in Boston. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. The issue flagged by Fedora concerned that third-party code. In essence: If you remove all the vanilla GPLv2 or later software from Bacula you could also move back to your previous GPL+extra clauses license, or to a GPLv3 + OpenSSL exception license. Regards Shane - -- Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support Free Software http://fsfe.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRpZRctGa7CzA5hXyAQJ1UAP/S1VHW5iA9MR0dl+i4C3PEoYnpdgbPSVa nsJp68tErT9QXnnhKBDb0HVZtzHEpTryknssXkFCEeFTy7GllKRUfRys0zKQWF5Q EWSoKooUcZsLMnJpoqgG0P4AX+Nl/3Ft46TtHhe+WFCGAdij8B2puUmx1oq4Uetl hoJ0BlSk40A= =vHfw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 app with copied GPLv2 or later source and linked against LGPL-2 or later libraries
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes All the gnucash source code used in gpe-cash is GPLv2 or later. The Gtk frontend for gpe-cash is GPLv3 or later. I am therefore using my option to distribute and modify the gnucash source code under a later version of the GPL, bringing the entire source code for gpe-cash under version 3 of the GPL. This specifically includes the shared library libqofcashobjects. Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are NOT bringing the entire source code for gpe-cash under version 3 of the GPL. If it was licenced 2 or later, it STAYS 2 or later. What you are doing is saying gpe-cash contains some code that is '2 or later' and some code that is '3 only' or '3 or later', therefore 3 is the only licence that is valid for gpe-cash. To re-iterate. You are NOT changing the pre-existing licence on code you've borrowed. But because of the mix of licences, the only licence that is valid for the combined work is v3. Perhaps a bit pedantic, but you are right. What he is doing is doesn't actually change the licences, but the result effectively has the licence of GPL v3 (or perhaps GPL v3 or Later). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 06:06:14PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote: 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. There was the possibility that the final GPLv3 might turn out compatible with the OpenSSL licence. However, the published GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL licence. To be sure I also confirmed this with Brett Smith at FSF in Boston. I agree that the GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license, in the sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no more easily understood) system exception clause, which seems to allow distributing GPLv3 binaries that are /dynamically linked/ against OpenSSL. Is this not the position of FSF/FSF Europe? 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. The issue flagged by Fedora concerned that third-party code. In essence: If you remove all the vanilla GPLv2 or later software from Bacula you could also move back to your previous GPL+extra clauses license, or to a GPLv3 + OpenSSL exception license. Is there some reason that marking only his code as GPLv2 + OpenSSL exception, making it clear that other code (and which other code) included in Bacula does not have such an exception, would not be acceptable to all parties? Granting an additional permission is not modifying the GPL, and as long as the permission is detachable it would not make the license incompatible with the vanilla GPLv2 used in other parts of the work; and that would permit distributors to make an informed decision whether to excise the GPLv2-only code in order to distribute binaries linked against OpenSSL. Thanks, -- 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]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Shane M. Coughlan wrote: Hi Kern Kern Sibbald wrote: What I would like: I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL. snip 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL. I understood that you require OpenSSL for Bacula due to user demand, so you could not replace it by GNUTLS entirely. Is that correct? Yes, that is essentially correct. gnutls could replace OpenSSL for nearly everyone, but some institutions such as banks and financial instututions may need the extra certification that OpenSSL has. 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. There was the possibility that the final GPLv3 might turn out compatible with the OpenSSL licence. However, the published GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL licence. To be sure I also confirmed this with Brett Smith at FSF in Boston. OK, thanks for the confirmation -- too bad. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. The issue flagged by Fedora concerned that third-party code. In essence: If you remove all the vanilla GPLv2 or later software from Bacula you could also move back to your previous GPL+extra clauses license, or to a GPLv3 + OpenSSL exception license. OK, I think the possible solutions are pretty clear to me. Thank you for the rapid response. Best regards, Kern Regards Shane -- Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support Free Software http://fsfe.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Thursday 12 July 2007 18:06, Gervase Markham wrote: Kern Sibbald wrote: 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. I don't believe that Debian provides legal views... Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. Debian has in the past provided me with their take on my license as it applies to their distribution, which is what interests me. My personal view is that GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license. That has been confirmed by FSFE (Shane). The problematic part of the OpenSSL license is the BSD advertising clause: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) (From http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html) I personally see no particular issue with the advertising clause from two points of view: - if he really wants such an acknowledgement, why not. For me, it doesn't violate any of my fundamental rights. If one mentions Windows, in any documentation whatsoever, one is required to mention that it is a trademark of Microsoft -- the same applies to a lot of other things as well, including the name Bacula :-) - Bacula does no advertisment (we have a users manual, but that is not advertisement, IMO), so this clause would have no effect anyway. The only way this might be compatible with GPLv3 is if this clause was permitted by one of the clauses in GPLv3 section 7, Additional Terms. The only one under which it might fit is clause b): Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: ... * b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; (From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) However, this only permits requiring preservation of notices in the material. An advertisement mentioning OpenSSL is not part of OpenSSL, and so this clause does not make point 3. of the OpenSSL license GPLv3-compatible. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. This seems the correct way forward in the long term. Yes, that is the conculsion I have come to as well. Thanks. It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should make my life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder. Best regards, Kern Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello Shane, Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose is not to debate the issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacula so that all distributions can use it with OpenSSL or any other Open Source code without problems. Please excuse me if I provide you with a bit of my reasoning and thoughts -- the idea is to help you target responses so I can end up with an accpetable solution. History: Bacula originally used the GPL v2 license, but I added some modifications to it -- most if not all are (IMO) now contained in the GPL v3. However, some of my original modifications created objections with Debian, so I removed them. In addition, Debian has an issue with distributing Bacula linked with OpenSSL and as a consequence, I added a modification to the GPL permitting Debian to link Bacula with OpenSSL. In more recent discussions with you, it seems that some of my modifications to the GPL (particularly the Debian clause) created a legal problem with Fedora and hence Red Hat because the GPL v2 is incompatible with the OpenSSL license and because there are about 10-20 files in the Bacula source that are copyrighted by third-parties under the GPL, so by modifying my license, I was or could have been technically violating their licenses. Well it is not a violation to have a mechanism to allow third parties to link to openSSL. The third parties would be violating licences by linking the work (assuming the FSF's linking theories are in fact leagally sound), however that is not your concern. What would be your concern is that distributions are often not willing to distribute the linked executables, for obvious reasons. However, for you the ideal situation would be to get permission from the copyright holders of the gpl'ed code you did not write to add a clause allowing linking to openssl. If you could do that, then just add the clause and everything is fine. One other possibility you did not list in your message would be to convince openSSL to change the licence to one that is GPL-compatible. This seems highly unlikely (nearly impossible), but would finally fix this problem once and for all. (The OpenSSL team feels the licence is GPL-compatible. It's unclear why, as it has a BSD like-advertising clause that is infamous for its GPL-incompatibility). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : How do we get there? It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives: 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL. This looks like a good thing to do in the long term anyway, and not only for licensing matters. 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. The GPL v3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license. However, section 6 states: A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work. Apart from the very bad wording, I think the OpenSSL libraries can be perfectly considered as part of the System libraries. This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can also be included in Debian. Please note that this is only applicable if your third-party contributions are licensed under GPL v2 or later. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to accept an entirely new license. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should make my life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder. The main point of the GPL is not to make your life easier, but to prevent your code from being used unfairly. If you want to go the easy way you should choose the MIT license :) -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:52, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 16:41 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : How do we get there? It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives: 1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL. This looks like a good thing to do in the long term anyway, and not only for licensing matters. 2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question. The GPL v3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license. However, section 6 states: A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work. Apart from the very bad wording, I think the OpenSSL libraries can be perfectly considered as part of the System libraries. This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can also be included in Debian. Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (restriction of my freedom) is in GPL if it does not permit linking with OpenSSL (IMO). I agree with your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that is not the official interpretation that Debian takes or am I mistaken? In fact, I consider for linking with Bacula as a separately installed piece of the system libraries that OpenSSL is part of the operating system in the same way that tcp wrappers or glibc is or any other library is, which would mean that there should be no problem with GPL v2. However, I know as a fact that as far as GPL v2 goes, Debian definitely does not agree with my interpretation. Please note that this is only applicable if your third-party contributions are licensed under GPL v2 or later. Bacula code is GPL v2, but all third party GPL'ed code (mostly FSF) is GPL v2 or later. 3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software. GPL + OpenSSL exception would be enough to be sure. You may have more luck convincing copyright owners to grant an OpenSSL exception than to accept an entirely new license. I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I have already explored. Regards, Kern Unless Debian finds that GPL v3 will work with OpenSSL, barring one more unexplored avenue, over time, I'll purge all third party GPL'ed code and either modify or more likely switch off the GPL license ... Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Thursday 12 July 2007 22:59, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 20:18 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : It seems a real pity to me that the GPL is so restrictive -- it should make my life as a programmer easier, but it has in fact made it harder. The main point of the GPL is not to make your life easier, but to prevent your code from being used unfairly. If you want to go the easy way you should choose the MIT license :) I would like a tit-for-a-tat clause so that those who modify it and distribute it are obligated to publish their modifications. The MIT license does not provide that. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can also be included in Debian. Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (restriction of my freedom) is in GPL if it does not permit linking with OpenSSL (IMO). This is a flaw in the copyleft, because it allows proprietary software distributors to benefit from the software more than they deserve. As for not being compatible with the OpenSSL license, this is intentional and the fact the GPLv3 wasn't changed to allow it confirms this intention. The advertising clause is not problematic for Bacula, but it may be so for much other software. I agree with your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that is not the official interpretation that Debian takes or am I mistaken? The GPLv3 is quite new and I don't think all consequences have been explored. Anyway, it would be more relevant to know whether the copyright holders (here, the FSF) agree that this clause applies to OpenSSL in Debian (which is priority important and required by key components of the windowing system). In fact, I consider for linking with Bacula as a separately installed piece of the system libraries that OpenSSL is part of the operating system in the same way that tcp wrappers or glibc is or any other library is, which would mean that there should be no problem with GPL v2. However, I know as a fact that as far as GPL v2 goes, Debian definitely does not agree with my interpretation. This is true for Bacula packages you would distribute yourself, but this is *not* the case for packages included in Debian. The GPLv2 reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component itself accompanies the executable*. This clause couldn't be more explicit. Debian ships all its software at the same place, which means the exception doesn't apply. Bacula code is GPL v2, but all third party GPL'ed code (mostly FSF) is GPL v2 or later. Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian. I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I have already explored. Indeed. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:31, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 12 juillet 2007 à 23:42 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit : This flaw of the GPLv3 is at least good for something. If your GPL software can now be included in the HP-UX or AIX distribution, it can also be included in Debian. Well, I don't consider the above a flaw. The flaw (restriction of my freedom) is in GPL if it does not permit linking with OpenSSL (IMO). This is a flaw in the copyleft, because it allows proprietary software distributors to benefit from the software more than they deserve. As for not being compatible with the OpenSSL license, this is intentional and the fact the GPLv3 wasn't changed to allow it confirms this intention. The advertising clause is not problematic for Bacula, but it may be so for much other software. I agree with your interpretation, but I'm pretty sure that is not the official interpretation that Debian takes or am I mistaken? The GPLv3 is quite new and I don't think all consequences have been explored. Anyway, it would be more relevant to know whether the copyright holders (here, the FSF) agree that this clause applies to OpenSSL in Debian (which is priority important and required by key components of the windowing system). In fact, I consider for linking with Bacula as a separately installed piece of the system libraries that OpenSSL is part of the operating system in the same way that tcp wrappers or glibc is or any other library is, which would mean that there should be no problem with GPL v2. However, I know as a fact that as far as GPL v2 goes, Debian definitely does not agree with my interpretation. This is true for Bacula packages you would distribute yourself, but this is *not* the case for packages included in Debian. The GPLv2 reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, *unless that component itself accompanies the executable*. This clause couldn't be more explicit. Debian ships all its software at the same place, which means the exception doesn't apply. I think you are misreading the above. It simply says that for us who distribute Bacula code only, we are not required to distribute the source code for other major components that Bacula may use, such as glibc, tcpwrappers, or OpenSSL. However, you (Debian) who distribute a whole operating system, must also include all the source to all the packages, which is exactly what you do. The source code that you distribute includes the source to OpenSSL. There is no issue here since the source code must just be available on request, which is the case. It doesn't have to ship with the binaries. Bacula code is GPL v2, but all third party GPL'ed code (mostly FSF) is GPL v2 or later. Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian. Sorry, but could you run it by me one more time why GPL v3 will work for Debian and why GPL v2 will not. The problem on GPL v2 for me was I needed to make an exception, which I cannot do without violating the 3rd party GPL licensed code I use. Why does GPL v3 resolve this?From what I understood, you are saying that in GPL v3 any separate object code does not require releasing the source for that object code -- i.e. it is now possible for a GPLed program to link to a separate object that is built from proprietary source? I am told that FSF never grants exceptions so this is a hopeless path that I have already explored. Indeed. There is a certain logic in that response since they have pushed hard for reducing the number of licenses, it makes sense that they are not going to favor making derivatives themselves to their own licenses ... -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
