Re: Bacula: GPL and OpenSSL

2007-06-09 Thread Steve Langasek
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

2007-06-09 Thread Kern Sibbald
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

2007-06-09 Thread Claus Färber
[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]