Re: [Bacula-devel] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5Bopenchange=5D=5Bdevel=5D_Bacula_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?and_Exchange=09mail=09stores?=

[Kern S. <ke...@si...>]

On Tuesday 11 September 2007 16:17, Jos=E9 Luis Tall=F3n wrote:
> Hi all,  and sorry to jump it a bit late
>
> simo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 20:15 +0930, Dan Shearer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 08:13:42PM +0930, Dan Shearer wrote:
> >>> There are two small doors that could be left open for the future:
> >>> Bacula could implement "or later version" in its forthcoming modified
> >>> GPL, and OpenChange could dual-license its work with, say, the GPL.
> >
> > OpenChange links directly with GPLed (no L) code so making a small
> > portion LGPL will change nothing, the whole work will still be GPL.
> >
> > To the Bacula team, I'd like to make them aware that OpenSSL is not the
> > only SSL/TLS library, there are also NSS and GNUTLS, both these
> > libraries are licensed under the GPL (NSS it tri-licensed), currently
> > v2, but I am sure they will be GPLv3 compatible soon.
> >
> > So if OpenSSL is the only piece that requires you to add exceptions (and
> > therefore makes you incompatible with any other GPL code) then you can
> > easily substitute it with NSS or GNUTLS.
>
> IANAL, but as far as I know, adding a license exception to one's license
> (i.e., "linking with this other license is explicitly allowed") does not
> modify the license itself.

Yes, correct.

>
> However, I do understand the point that other libraries that are to be
> linked in are also being linked to the "incompatible" library ... Please
> note that this is becoming more a philosophical problem than anything els=
e.
> As I see it: if it is my code which is linking in other people's
> libraries, it's only my linking with each library which needs to be
> fixed. As long as OpenSSL does not require being linked *with* (not:
> alongside) other library, it should all be ok.

Yes, correct anyone can link anything with any code they want.  The only=20
problem comes if you then want to distribute the code -- that is where the=
=20
GPL becomes very restrictive.  You cannot *distribute* binary that contains=
=20
GPL code copyrighted by 3rd parties if it is linked with Open Source softwa=
re=20
that the FSF deems is incompatible with the GPL because of=20
trivial "advertising clauses" which they claim are "onerous".

If Bacula adds modifications to the license, this in no way restricts the u=
se=20
of the software -- it can only increase the use.  The modifications obvious=
ly=20
cannot apply to 3rd party GPLed software.

>
> (again, IANAL)
>
> > Moreover, NSS is certified at a higher level of security than OpenSSL,
> > and recently in RH we made some work to make a compatibility layer to
> > make it easier to port OpenSSL applications to NSS.
> >
> > It would be really nice if bacula could be GPLv2+ without exceptions, it
> > would have access to a larger body of code and chance to use directly
> > libraries like the ones from openchange or libsmbclient instead of being
> > forced to run scripts and try to interpret output
>
> In either case, thank you all for your efforts in creating the best
> backup system ever

Thanks.  I'm working on making it *far* better ... :-)

Kern

>
>
>     J.L.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-devel mailing list
> Bac...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel