On Monday 01 October 2007 11:44, Dan Shearer wrote: > Just an FYI to the OpenChange and Bacula lists. A confused posting from > someone called "anonymous" somehow got through the strict editorial > quality controls on slashdot, drawing some bizarre conclusions from a > recent thread on these lists from a couple of weeks ago. See > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/30/195207 . > > I have responded with a comment at > http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=312965&cid=20807849 .
Thanks for notifying us of this. I find it unfortunate that "anonymous" writers draw conclusions about other people's motives for their licensing choice, but given the general state of the world now, it is probably not too serious. Regarding your response to that email: I'm not really convinced that our views differ in any significant way as we both fully support Open Source, though each person may have different nuances of what is important or not. The problem that the Bacula project is facing at the current time, is that the GPL and the OpenSSL license are incompatible. The only solution I have found that allows us to distribute Bacula linked with OpenSSL that is workable in the short term is to provide an exception to the GPL. This in turn prevents us from distributing code linked with OpenChange that is licensed under a "pure" GPL. So, unless I am missing something, it is licensing "technicalities" that are our problem rather than any point of view differences. Best regards, Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
