Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:11:45AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: However, the strict interpretation would imply that the GPL is not fair (in the sense of compaints about the Novell - Microsoft contract), because I can distribute Bacula binaries because no where on any of the project sites do we distribute OpenSSL, but then the strict definition says that you cannot distribute Bacula because you have OpenSSL someplace on the distribution disks, or on your servers. I'm not familiar with the arguments that have been made in the case of Novell-Microsoft. I'm certainly not aware of any argument why this aspect of the GPL is not fair (=permitted under law) in a legal sense. In recent times, it appears that some Unix vendors such as Sun and Apple have also begun distributing GNU software as part of systems whose cores are not licensed compatibly with the GPL, with the FSF's tacit consent; that seems ill-advised to me, but in any case the FSF's interpretations of the GPL aren't binding on other copyright holders where those interpretations don't follow logically from the text of the license. I'm not sure Sun and Apple are so ill-advised. Sorry, I meant that I considered it ill-advised for the FSF to give their tacit approval. :) By the way, just to be clear, I consider all this (not you guys but these license difficulties) to be a real pain. As long as the code is Open Source (i.e. I can get it, see it and modify it), I have no problem with it being linked with Bacula. Ah, well, that right there is sufficient for us to use as a license exception grant. :) But of course it's not binding on other copyright holders. If that resoves the problems, great. Here is what I have just added to the LICENSE file -- hopefully it should be clear. Here is a snippet from the LICENSE file ... ... License: For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2 this code is listed under Copyright Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. A small part of the code (less than 20 files) is copyrighted under the GPL by other people (FSF, Sun, ...). Oh. So this is a case where you've assigned copyright to FSFE? Does the FSFE's copyright assignment procedure give you the right to continue licensing your code under any license of your choice? What follows is information from the authors of the code: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL. However, if configured with encryption Bacula does use the OpenSSL libraries which are, unfortunately, not compatible with GPL v2. To the best of our knowledge these libaries are not distributed with Bacula code because they are shared objects, and as such there is no conflict with the GPL according what I (Kern) understand in talking to FSFE, and in any case, for the code that I have written, I have no problems linking in OpenSSL (of course this does not speak for the few files in Bacula that are copyrighted by others). If you take a more severe stance on this issue, and you are going to distribute Bacula, then simply do not use the --with-openssl when building your package, and no use of OpenSSL even through dynamic linking will be included. ... Seems rather overwrought to me for inclusion in a license file. I would suggest one of the following two approaches, either: In addition, for code copyright $foo, permission is explicitly granted to distribute binaries dynamically linked with libraries distributed under the OpenSSL license, even in cases where those libraries are distributed together with the binaries. or: It is the understanding of $foo that the GPL permits distribution of binaries dynamically linked to OpenSSL, even in cases where OpenSSL is distributed together with the binaries. But if the code is copyright: FSFE, I don't know if this is something you would have to clear with them first. The problem is that those third-party sources are linked into the Bacula binaries, and since they are licensed as GPL with no modifications, I cannot include them in a binary that has code that is licensed in a way that is incompatible with the GPL. Adding the OpenSSL exception to my license makes my code incompatible with the non-modified GPL, and hence I was violating the license on those 3rd party files (copyrighted by FSF, ATT, Sun, and a few others ...). To be clear here, it's not incompatible with the GPL for you to grant additional linking permissions, which is what is being done. The only real issue is that you can't grant such permission on behalf of other copyright holders. That is what I believed, but according to Fedora/Red Hat and FSFE, the fact that I have mixed code in a single binary that is pure GPL for which I (FSFE) do not hold the copyright and GPL with a modified license violates the license given by the authors of the pure GPL. Since that is serious to me, and I am not a lawyer, and I
Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL
On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:26, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:11:45AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: However, the strict interpretation would imply that the GPL is not fair (in the sense of compaints about the Novell - Microsoft contract), because I can distribute Bacula binaries because no where on any of the project sites do we distribute OpenSSL, but then the strict definition says that you cannot distribute Bacula because you have OpenSSL someplace on the distribution disks, or on your servers. I'm not familiar with the arguments that have been made in the case of Novell-Microsoft. I'm certainly not aware of any argument why this aspect of the GPL is not fair (=permitted under law) in a legal sense. Well, one of the main objections to the Novell-Microsoft contract from what I understand is that Microsoft has promissed not to pursue Novell or Novell's customers for any violation of Microsoft patents. According to FSF, if I understand it right, this is unfair because it only protects a part of the GPL users and not everyone. Any such license should, according to them, apply to all or none. In recent times, it appears that some Unix vendors such as Sun and Apple have also begun distributing GNU software as part of systems whose cores are not licensed compatibly with the GPL, with the FSF's tacit consent; that seems ill-advised to me, but in any case the FSF's interpretations of the GPL aren't binding on other copyright holders where those interpretations don't follow logically from the text of the license. I'm not sure Sun and Apple are so ill-advised. Sorry, I meant that I considered it ill-advised for the FSF to give their tacit approval. :) I suspect that they are trying to be practical and don't want to chase after users in technical violations where there is no intent to subvert Open Source objectives. By the way, just to be clear, I consider all this (not you guys but these license difficulties) to be a real pain. As long as the code is Open Source (i.e. I can get it, see it and modify it), I have no problem with it being linked with Bacula. Ah, well, that right there is sufficient for us to use as a license exception grant. :) But of course it's not binding on other copyright holders. If that resoves the problems, great. Here is what I have just added to the LICENSE file -- hopefully it should be clear. Here is a snippet from the LICENSE file ... ... License: For the most part, Bacula is licensed under the GPL version 2 this code is listed under Copyright Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. A small part of the code (less than 20 files) is copyrighted under the GPL by other people (FSF, Sun, ...). Oh. So this is a case where you've assigned copyright to FSFE? Does the FSFE's copyright assignment procedure give you the right to continue licensing your code under any license of your choice? Yes. They have a fiduciary licence arrangement with us (me). The project can decide what license it will use. There is a certain amount of mutual consentment, but there is no question that they are not going to (and did not when I told them) complain about removing modifications to the GPL. So it is clear, I do have the right to license the software anyway I want, but of course, if I license it differently, that would be a fork or a special deal, and might not hold for the project, which is dedicated to Open Source. FSFE also has certain rights and obligations. 99.9% of it is spelled out on their web site. What follows is information from the authors of the code: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL. However, if configured with encryption Bacula does use the OpenSSL libraries which are, unfortunately, not compatible with GPL v2. To the best of our knowledge these libaries are not distributed with Bacula code because they are shared objects, and as such there is no conflict with the GPL according what I (Kern) understand in talking to FSFE, and in any case, for the code that I have written, I have no problems linking in OpenSSL (of course this does not speak for the few files in Bacula that are copyrighted by others). If you take a more severe stance on this issue, and you are going to distribute Bacula, then simply do not use the --with-openssl when building your package, and no use of OpenSSL even through dynamic linking will be included. ... Seems rather overwrought to me for inclusion in a license file. I would suggest one of the following two approaches, either: In addition, for code copyright $foo, permission is explicitly granted to distribute binaries dynamically linked with libraries distributed under the OpenSSL license, even in cases where those libraries are distributed together with the binaries. or: It is the understanding of
Re: Computer with Debian preinstalled
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: I think the most practical solution would be to write an offer saying To obtain the source code for the software on your system, send $5 to cover postage and media costs to Michael Bode, insert address. You can also obtain the source code online... list instructions for downloading sources. Just saying 'download the sources' does not meet the requirements of GPLv2. Writing an offer means that you won't have to worry about it until someone actually requests it. That's a bad idea. What if the download site goes away after, say, 30 months and only then someone makes a request because he was unable to download it from the net? It you haven't wasted any thought on archiving the sources, you have a reason to be worried then. Claus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]