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]
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
