Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. Licence proliferation suggestion: use something similar to the FSF's OpenSSL permission. Here is one from Wget I have here: In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the OpenSSL library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Not that I think yours is bad, but I think this could be combined with others using the same phrasing more easily. +1 to comments about non-OpenSSL-permitting code uncertainty. Thanks for the comments. As long as what I currently have is acceptable, I think I will stay with it, because it isn't clear to me that I have any permission from the Free Software Foundation, and because I'd rather focus on programming than the license. Best regards, Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised Bacula license
Kern Sibbald wrote: John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people. If you link to OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries, you definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula; Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. Licence proliferation suggestion: use something similar to the FSF's OpenSSL permission. Here is one from Wget I have here: In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the OpenSSL library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Not that I think yours is bad, but I think this could be combined with others using the same phrasing more easily. +1 to comments about non-OpenSSL-permitting code uncertainty. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people. Best regards, Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised Bacula license
From: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trademark: The name Bacula is a registered trademark. I assume there is an implicit trademark licence. In this case an implicit licence is probably better than an explicit one, solely because it is virtually impossible to word a trademark licence to allow reasonable modifications, but not major incompatible changes without changing the name. === License: For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2 and any code that is Copyright Kern Sibbald and John Walker or Copyright Kern Sibbald (after November 2004) with the GPL indication is so licensed, but with the following four additions: Ok. To ensure GPL compatibility, it may be wise to add the clauses stating that derivitives need not keep the additional clauses, but may do so. Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. IP rights: Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Program. I belive that is a no-op. Obviously that is the case, Copyrights: Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant the copyright license set forth in this Agreement. Is that nessissary? I thought that the GPL already had that covered. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Revised Bacula license
Hello, Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. Thanks, -- John - Forwarded message from Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:32:11 +0200 (CEST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hello John, I'm attaching a copy of LICENSE as I intend to commit it, and would appreciate it if you would look it over. If it seems OK with you would you please forward it to the appropriate Debian people for their approval, otherwise, let me know and I'll work on it some more. If it is OK with Debian, I specifically authorize you (Debian) to replace the existing LICENSE with this new copy in any versions that you currently have. Best regards, Kern --- Trademark: The name Bacula is a registered trademark. === License: For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2 and any code that is Copyright Kern Sibbald and John Walker or Copyright Kern Sibbald (after November 2004) with the GPL indication is so licensed, but with the following four additions: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. IP rights: Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Program. Copyrights: Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant the copyright license set forth in this Agreement. Code falling under the above conditions will be marked as follows: Copyright (C) 2000-2006 Kern Sibbald This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as amended with additional clauses defined in the file LICENSE in the main source directory. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the the file LICENSE for additional details. Windows: Certain source code used to build the Windows version of the Bacula File daemon is copyrighted and or trademarked by Microsoft and may contain Microsoft intellectual property (examples: Microsoft VC++, the source to the VSS libraries, the Microsoft C runtime libraries). As such we cannot and do not distribute that software. We are permitted however to distribute Bacula in binary form with the necessary Microsoft libraries linked in. You may obtain the parts that we cannot distribute as follows. The Microsoft compiler available for purchase, and Microsoft provides a free version of the compiler. The source code and libraries are available for download from Microsoft public Web servers. We have documented in the src/win32 directory the URLs from which we obtained the library source, and how we build the Windows File daemon and many users have succeeded in doing so themselves. Our intention is to respect as closely as possible Open Source practices while maintaining full respect for proprietary and copyrighted code. = The entire GPL is reproduced in the manuals distributed with the Bacula documentation and can also be found online on the GNU web site as well as at www.bacula.org. You may also obtain a copy of the GPL (or LGPL) by writing to: Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. There are parts of Bacula that are licensed under the LGPL so that they may be used in proprietary code to interface with Bacula. Finally there are parts of Bacula that are in the public domain. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Revised Bacula license
This one time, at band camp, Josh Triplett said: John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. This would need to be reviewed, I think, before being sure. It is my understanding that bacula uses a client/server implementation, so it is not clear to me that a lack of an excemption in the client code would prevent the server (with proper excemption) from linking to ssl. But as you say, this is not a freeness issue, just a useability one. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
