Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-21 Thread MJ Ray
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9). How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a problem, but only for users of Bacula. It seems to

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-21 Thread Nathanael Nerode
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the following? - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled: Termination for IP or Patent Action. - I change the manual license to be GPL

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 19 May 2006 22:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Kern Sibbald wrote: [...] Hmmm. I don't think I have ever seen the Postfix license, but someone else has probably picked it up, and applying it more globally is almost surely something I have added. In any case, I have now deleted that clause from

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread John Goerzen
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: *trademark* unfairly and without permission. If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license -- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that intellectual property right does

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread John Goerzen
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the following? - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled: Termination for IP or Patent Action. - I change the manual license to be GPL

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread Kern Sibbald
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license. From http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup Termination for IP or Patent Action: In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this license shall

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: *trademark* unfairly and without permission. If I remember correctly, I pulled this clause from some existing license -- perhaps an IBM license. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that intellectual property right does

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9). I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug. How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a problem, but only for users of Bacula. I

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-19 Thread Kern Sibbald
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming the following? - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled: Termination for IP or Patent Action. - I change the manual license to be GPL

Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread Nathanael Nerode
I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license. From http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup Termination for IP or Patent Action: In addition to the termination clause specified in the GPL, this license shall terminate

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread John Goerzen
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license. Thanks for mentioning this, Nathanael. I had read the license, but had assumed (incorrectly, I guess) that Jose had already evaluated it here before

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread MJ Ray
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect that this will not be considered a reasonable clause by most people on debian-legal. It effectively says As long as you use Bacula, you grant everyone in the world the right to use any or your copyrighted work in any GPLed program, and you grant

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread John Goerzen
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:10:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: That's how I understand the clause too. Contaminates other software (DFSG 9). I'm amazed it got into main. Serious bug. How does that contaminate other software? I agree that there may be a problem, but only for users of Bacula. Who

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:27:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:54:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: This is an additional restriction beyond those in the GPL. Therefore this renders the license GPL-incompatible. Which is a major problem since other parts of

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

2006-05-18 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 18 May 2006 13:54:46 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: I have just discovered that Bacula has a problematic clause in its license. Thanks for pointing this terrific clause out. From http://bacula.cvs.sourceforge.net/bacula/bacula/LICENSE?revision=1.6.2.2view=markup