From: Kern S. <ke...@si...> - 2007-09-30 15:37:31
|
On Sunday 30 September 2007 17:30, Ross Boylan wrote: > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:06 -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > > Kern Sibbald wrote: > > > It is too bad we were not aware of these subtle licensing constraints a > > > few years ago when Landon and I agreed on what encryption package to > > > use. > > > > I'm not sure I entirely follow the issues with OpenSSL licensing. > > What's the basic problem there? > > Well, you can look at the 2 rather long threads referenced in my > original post. My understanding is that the openssl license is > incompatible with a vanilla GPL 2 license. Most of bacula is licensed > with GPL 2 and an open ssl exception, but there are (soon to be were) a > few files that lack the exception. > > Whether openssl, or, strictly, the use of openssl libraries, is > incompatible with GPL 3 is in dispute. As far as I can tell, no one > thinks GPL 2 and openssl are compatible (except for general doubts about > the legal status of GPL's prohibitions about linked code). GPLv3 and OpenSSL are also incompatible licenses. However, GPLv3 *is* compatible with the Apache license, while GPLv2 is not, and that is why there was a bit of confusing in the beginning of the discussion. > > This is my understanding only; it may be imperfect. IANAL. > Ross > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 |