On 3/30/09 8:24 PM, "Dan Langille" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you are referring to some packagers which feared license
> incompatibility and thus did not choose the OpenSSL option when
> compiling Bacula.
> I recall there was an issue, related to licenses, but this has since
> been corrected with the soon-to-be-released Bacula 3.0
>
> - From http://marc.info/?l=bacula-devel&m=123833324825601&w=2
>
> "The code in this version of Bacula is now license clean, which means
> that there should no longer be any license incompatibilities between the
> Bacula code and OpenSSL."
Yes, that should be OK from this point on -- I've been looking forward to
having the code be declared clean wrt to playing nice with OpenSSL. I
haven't built 3.x on s390x yet, so I don't know whether it will exploit the
hardware crypto on those boxes yet -- it's a function of the OpenSSL
implementation, so I would anticipate it would work fine, but haven't tested
it.
-- db
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
