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!
???
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ).
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
