Re: [Bacula-users] Important Bacula Status Report -- second version

[Dan Langille]

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Raymond Burns Jr.  > wrote:
> 
> 1. I think this is good news. Not really sure. Sounds to me as work will 
> continue as normal, with the possible assistance from another Bacula 
> maintainer for binaries.
> 2. This is where I have questions.
> Assuming the FSFE was the legal protection during the Barios lawsuit, the 
> final outcome was not 100% pleasant for the Bacula team. That is an 
> assumption. So this either means:
> a. Kern and team can protect Bacula community Code for much less cost.
> b. Kern and team can find protection that will render better results in a 
> future lawsuit.
> c. The future will be unstable for community as the only viable protection is 
> through Enterprise edition. (This idea doesn't coincide with a 7.2.0 release, 
> but does allow community to remain free since 7.0.5 is so stable)
> 
> Please tell me I'm way off, and "c." is DEFINITELY not correct.

You're way off.  :)

c is definitely not correct.

> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM Kern Sibbald  > wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to discuss the following topics:
> 
> 1. Bacula Release Status
> 
> 2. The FSFE and licenses
> 
> 
> 1. Bacula Release Status
> As probably know, the latest release of Bacula is 7.0.5.  This release
> has proved quite stable but there are a few bugs open on it, and I am
> working on them.  I am also working on back porting bug fixes and new
> features from the Bacula Enterprise version 8.2.0. I hope this work will
> be complete sometime in June so that I can make a new release (7.2.0) in
> June or July of this year.
> 
> In addition, Bacula Systems has hired a new IT Administrator who will
> begin in May. Part of his time will be devoted to improving the Bacula
> community web site as well as providing binary packages for the
> community. Providing binary packages for the community has been an on
> going project of mine, which has been delayed due to lack of man-power.
> By the way, the new IT Administrator has been working with Bacula for a
> long time and is well known to the community.
> 
> 2. The FSFE and licenses
> I would like to report that the FSFE has posted a notification of
> changed relations between the FSFE and myself.  You can find the
> statement at the following link:
> 
>http://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150414-01.en.html 
> 
> 
> As many of you know in 2006, I signed a Fiduciary License Agreement
> (FLA) that gave the FSFE the exclusive copyright for the Bacula.org 
> 
> software. That means that they had the responsibility to protect the
> software. In 2006, I felt that the the Bacula project needed protection
> and guidance of the FSFE and their FLA process, and I was pleased to
> have their help. As the project has grown and become more global and
> solid, I feel that I can more efficiently manage this responsibility
> myself, and I thank the FSFE for their help over the years.
> 
> The Bacula.org  software that has been released, will 
> always remain Free
> Software, and it is not possible for anyone to change that fact.  I have
> been writing and releasing free software and open source software since
> 1972, and as I have stated many times, I am and will remain a very
> strong supporter and creator of open source software, and future
> Bacula.org  community software will always be open source.
> 
> My goal is to have the Bacula.org  code covered by FLAs 
> (or their
> equivalent) that are clear and consistent.  In fact, due to significant
> FLA updating work I did last year and early this year with lots of help
> and understanding from the Bacula contributors (thank you), I believe
> that all known issues are already resolved and I continue to work FSFE.
> 
> If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to either post them to
> the bacula-users list if they are general or directly to me at kern (at)
> sibbald (dot) com if they are specific to you or you prefer to keep them
> private.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kern
> 
> --
> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- 
>  event?utm_
> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
> ___
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users 
> 
> 

Re: [Bacula-users] using different fileset for Base job

[Kern Sibbald]

Hello,

Though Base jobs can use the same FileSet as normal backup jobs, I would
suggest that it should as good practice use a different FileSet that is
in fact a subset of the normal jobs containing only files that you
expect not to change very often -- that is the concept. If they base of
a normal backup is a large body of files (e.g. the OS) that do not
change very often, then those files will not be backed up on every Full
(with Base turned on).

The Base job can backup anything (e.g. Linux and Windows).  Typically, I
would expect better results if you have different Base FileSets for each
major system type and/or version.

Best regards,
Kern

On 15.04.2015 16:31, Silver Salonen wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Can anyone confirm that base jobs with fileset different than the normal
> job should not be used?
>
> Basically the problem arises when restoring data because fileset needs
> to be selected too, but:
>
> 1) normal job with fileset different from it's original job is not found
> on restore
> 2) it seems to be not possible to leave fileset part blank on restoring
> 3) base job cannot be restored itself via Bacula director (bextract
> works only with unencrypted backups; restoring data via separate jobs
> misses deleted files too)
>
> If this is true then it's quite unfortunate as I have understood that
> one of the use-cases could be to use the same base job for OS files (eg.
> backup different Windows/Linux servers with the same base system).
>
> --
> Silver
>
> --
> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
> ___
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>


--
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Important Bacula Status Report -- second version

[Kern Sibbald]

  
  
Hello,
  
  Well, I cannot be so impolite and tell you that you are way off
  :-)
  
  However, please see below ...
  
  On 15.04.2015 15:23, Raymond Burns Jr. wrote:


  1. I think this is good news. Not really sure.
Sounds to me as work will continue as normal, with the possible
assistance from another Bacula maintainer for binaries.


Yes, this is, in my opinion, good news.  Nothing really changes
significantly, except that I can deal directly with any copyright
violations.  


  
2. This is where I have questions.
Assuming the FSFE was the legal protection during the
  Barios lawsuit, the final outcome was not 100% pleasant for
  the Bacula team. That is an assumption. 
  


The assumption is not correct.  Though FSFE was the legal protection
of the community version during the Bareos lawsuit, the lawsuit was
between Bacula Systems and Bareos and did not directly involve the
FSFE copyright. 

Bacula Systems (and the Bacula community team) is happy with the
outcome.  I assume that Bareos is as well.


  
So this either means:
a. Kern and team can protect Bacula community Code for much
  less cost.
  


There is no issue of cost.  It is more an issue of the situation
having changed (e.g. I have many more resources to manage Bacula
than previously) so dealing with copyright issues directly will be
more efficient.


  
b. Kern and team can find protection that will render
  better results in a future lawsuit.
  


While the above is possible, it was not a significant motivation in
the change regarding the FSFE.  In addition, I will be surprised if
there is a future lawsuit.  The other point here is that the change
concerns the FSFE and Kern personally, but not Bacula Systems. 


  
c. The future will be unstable for community as the only
  viable protection is through Enterprise edition. (This idea
  doesn't coincide with a 7.2.0 release, but does allow
  community to remain free since 7.0.5 is so stable)
  


The above is definitely not true.  The future for the community is
more development, more features.  I do not look at the change as
providing more viable protection since it is not really a question
of protection.  The question is who is the legal protector of
Bacula, a big organization such as the FSFE, with many priorities
probably more important than Bacula (my assumption) or is the legal
protector someone who has spent 15 year working on Bacula and close
to the project?  In 2006 my choice was the FSFE, because I was
over-my-head with licenses and legal issues.  I do not regret that
choice, but in 2015, my choice is to rely on myself and those close
to me who support Bacula.

Thanks for your comments.  I hope my response provides the answers
you want :-)

Best regards,
Kern


  


Please tell me I'm way off, and "c." is DEFINITELY not
  correct.
  
  On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM Kern
Sibbald 
wrote:
Hello,
  
  I would like to discuss the following topics:
  
  1. Bacula Release Status
  
  2. The FSFE and licenses
  
  
  1. Bacula Release Status
  As probably know, the latest release of Bacula is 7.0.5. 
  This release
  has proved quite stable but there are a few bugs open on
  it, and I am
  working on them.  I am also working on back porting bug
  fixes and new
  features from the Bacula Enterprise version 8.2.0. I hope
  this work will
  be complete sometime in June so that I can make a new
  release (7.2.0) in
  June or July of this year.
  
  In addition, Bacula Systems has hired a new IT
  Administrator who will
  begin in May. Part of his time will be devoted to
  improving the Bacula
  community web site as well as providing binary packages
  for the
  community. Providing binary packages for the community has
  been an on
  going project of mine, which has been delayed due to lack
  of man-power.
  By the way, the new IT Administrator has been working with
  Bacula for a
  long time and is well known to the community.
  
  2. The FSFE and licenses
  I would like to report that the FSFE has posted a
  notification of

Re: [Bacula-users] using different fileset for Base job

[Eric Bollengier]

Hello,

On 15/04/2015 16:31, Silver Salonen wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> Can anyone confirm that base jobs with fileset different than the normal
> job should not be used?

The base jobs can use any fileset and even an other client if you want.

> Basically the problem arises when restoring data because fileset needs
> to be selected too, but:
> 
> 1) normal job with fileset different from it's original job is not found
> on restore

When you select a job for restore, the process will automatically
includes files from basejobs (looking the BaseFiles table). The FileSet
of the Base job doesn't really matter during the restore.

> 2) it seems to be not possible to leave fileset part blank on restoring

It's not needed.

> 3) base job cannot be restored itself via Bacula director (bextract
> works only with unencrypted backups; restoring data via separate jobs
> misses deleted files too)

If you use the option 3 in the restore menu, you can choose the JobId of
the Base job.

> If this is true then it's quite unfortunate as I have understood that
> one of the use-cases could be to use the same base job for OS files (eg.
> backup different Windows/Linux servers with the same base system).

It's not always very efficient to mix clients or OSes in BaseJobs,
because by default, if a mtime/ctime is different from one system to an
other, files will be backed up again during the next Incremental (when
using Accurate=yes).

Best Regards,
Eric

-- 
Need professional help and support for Bacula ?
Visit http://www.baculasystems.com

--
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

[Bacula-users] using different fileset for Base job

[Silver Salonen]

Hi.

Can anyone confirm that base jobs with fileset different than the normal
job should not be used?

Basically the problem arises when restoring data because fileset needs
to be selected too, but:

1) normal job with fileset different from it's original job is not found
on restore
2) it seems to be not possible to leave fileset part blank on restoring
3) base job cannot be restored itself via Bacula director (bextract
works only with unencrypted backups; restoring data via separate jobs
misses deleted files too)

If this is true then it's quite unfortunate as I have understood that
one of the use-cases could be to use the same base job for OS files (eg.
backup different Windows/Linux servers with the same base system).

--
Silver

--
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Important Bacula Status Report -- second version

[Raymond Burns Jr.]

1. I think this is good news. Not really sure. Sounds to me as work will
continue as normal, with the possible assistance from another Bacula
maintainer for binaries.
2. This is where I have questions.
Assuming the FSFE was the legal protection during the Barios lawsuit, the
final outcome was not 100% pleasant for the Bacula team. That is an
assumption. So this either means:
a. Kern and team can protect Bacula community Code for much less cost.
b. Kern and team can find protection that will render better results in a
future lawsuit.
c. The future will be unstable for community as the only viable protection
is through Enterprise edition. (This idea doesn't coincide with a 7.2.0
release, but does allow community to remain free since 7.0.5 is so stable)

Please tell me I'm way off, and "c." is DEFINITELY not correct.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:57 AM Kern Sibbald  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to discuss the following topics:
>
> 1. Bacula Release Status
>
> 2. The FSFE and licenses
>
>
> 1. Bacula Release Status
> As probably know, the latest release of Bacula is 7.0.5.  This release
> has proved quite stable but there are a few bugs open on it, and I am
> working on them.  I am also working on back porting bug fixes and new
> features from the Bacula Enterprise version 8.2.0. I hope this work will
> be complete sometime in June so that I can make a new release (7.2.0) in
> June or July of this year.
>
> In addition, Bacula Systems has hired a new IT Administrator who will
> begin in May. Part of his time will be devoted to improving the Bacula
> community web site as well as providing binary packages for the
> community. Providing binary packages for the community has been an on
> going project of mine, which has been delayed due to lack of man-power.
> By the way, the new IT Administrator has been working with Bacula for a
> long time and is well known to the community.
>
> 2. The FSFE and licenses
> I would like to report that the FSFE has posted a notification of
> changed relations between the FSFE and myself.  You can find the
> statement at the following link:
>
>http://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150414-01.en.html
>
> As many of you know in 2006, I signed a Fiduciary License Agreement
> (FLA) that gave the FSFE the exclusive copyright for the Bacula.org
> software. That means that they had the responsibility to protect the
> software. In 2006, I felt that the the Bacula project needed protection
> and guidance of the FSFE and their FLA process, and I was pleased to
> have their help. As the project has grown and become more global and
> solid, I feel that I can more efficiently manage this responsibility
> myself, and I thank the FSFE for their help over the years.
>
> The Bacula.org software that has been released, will always remain Free
> Software, and it is not possible for anyone to change that fact.  I have
> been writing and releasing free software and open source software since
> 1972, and as I have stated many times, I am and will remain a very
> strong supporter and creator of open source software, and future
> Bacula.org community software will always be open source.
>
> My goal is to have the Bacula.org code covered by FLAs (or their
> equivalent) that are clear and consistent.  In fact, due to significant
> FLA updating work I did last year and early this year with lots of help
> and understanding from the Bacula contributors (thank you), I believe
> that all known issues are already resolved and I continue to work FSFE.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to either post them to
> the bacula-users list if they are general or directly to me at kern (at)
> sibbald (dot) com if they are specific to you or you prefer to keep them
> private.
>
> Best regards,
> Kern
>
>
> --
> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live
> exercises
> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual-
> event?utm_
> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
> ___
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>
--
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

[Bacula-users] Important Bacula Status Report -- second version

[Kern Sibbald]

Hello,

I would like to discuss the following topics:

1. Bacula Release Status

2. The FSFE and licenses


1. Bacula Release Status
As probably know, the latest release of Bacula is 7.0.5.  This release
has proved quite stable but there are a few bugs open on it, and I am
working on them.  I am also working on back porting bug fixes and new
features from the Bacula Enterprise version 8.2.0. I hope this work will
be complete sometime in June so that I can make a new release (7.2.0) in
June or July of this year.

In addition, Bacula Systems has hired a new IT Administrator who will
begin in May. Part of his time will be devoted to improving the Bacula
community web site as well as providing binary packages for the
community. Providing binary packages for the community has been an on
going project of mine, which has been delayed due to lack of man-power.
By the way, the new IT Administrator has been working with Bacula for a
long time and is well known to the community.

2. The FSFE and licenses
I would like to report that the FSFE has posted a notification of
changed relations between the FSFE and myself.  You can find the
statement at the following link:

   http://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150414-01.en.html

As many of you know in 2006, I signed a Fiduciary License Agreement
(FLA) that gave the FSFE the exclusive copyright for the Bacula.org
software. That means that they had the responsibility to protect the
software. In 2006, I felt that the the Bacula project needed protection
and guidance of the FSFE and their FLA process, and I was pleased to
have their help. As the project has grown and become more global and
solid, I feel that I can more efficiently manage this responsibility
myself, and I thank the FSFE for their help over the years.

The Bacula.org software that has been released, will always remain Free
Software, and it is not possible for anyone to change that fact.  I have
been writing and releasing free software and open source software since
1972, and as I have stated many times, I am and will remain a very
strong supporter and creator of open source software, and future
Bacula.org community software will always be open source.

My goal is to have the Bacula.org code covered by FLAs (or their
equivalent) that are clear and consistent.  In fact, due to significant
FLA updating work I did last year and early this year with lots of help
and understanding from the Bacula contributors (thank you), I believe
that all known issues are already resolved and I continue to work FSFE.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to either post them to
the bacula-users list if they are general or directly to me at kern (at)
sibbald (dot) com if they are specific to you or you prefer to keep them
private.

Best regards,
Kern

--
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users