Le vendredi 22 juin 2007 à 22:11 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :
> > I do not think that GPLv3 permits it.
>
> GPL v3 *is* compatible with the OpenSSL (actually the Apache) license
> according to FSF.
It may be compatible with the latest Apache license, but I don't see
anything in section 7 that
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 06:34:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Having already put my foot in this mess, I will try that out with the
> goal of producing patches this weekend, unless Kern, John or someone
> else prefers to investigate for themselves. I may miss some run-time
> cases (I don't c
John Goerzen writes:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>>
>> In the mean time, I sincerely hope that Debian finds some way to continue
>> releasing Bacula.
>
> It sounds like Debian will simply have to disable the SSL support in
> Bacula, yes? (this is a question t
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 10:30, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > I have seen various FSF FAQs over the years that have claimed that
> > > > distributing binaries
On Friday 08 June 2007 00:54, Michael Poole wrote:
> Kern Sibbald writes:
>
> > On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
> >>
> >> Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that
> >> dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is
> >> not a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> In the mean time, I sincerely hope that Debian finds some way to continue
> releasing Bacula.
It sounds like Debian will simply have to disable the SSL support in
Bacula, yes? (this is a question to -legal)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Friday 08 June 2007 10:30, Walter Landry wrote:
> Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I have seen various FSF FAQs over the years that have claimed that
> > > distributing binaries linked against OpenSSL is ok, but these FAQs
> >
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
> > distrib
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 d
On Friday 08 June 2007 16:56, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:57:22PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > However, I have now removed *all* modifications, so that the current
Bacula
> > code as of a few hours ago has no modifications to GPL v2. I am attaching
a
> > copy of the curr
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:57:22PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> However, I have now removed *all* modifications, so that the current Bacula
> code as of a few hours ago has no modifications to GPL v2. I am attaching a
> copy of the current LICENSE file as it is at this moment in the SVN
I'm not
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the problem is that parts of Bacula's code are copyrighted by third
> parties [...]
Why isn't that in the copyright file, JOOI?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeof
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] FSFE does not believe that an exception clause to
> the GPL is necessary to legally link to OpenSSL in the manner that
> Bacula is (dynamic linking).
I'm always open to learning more about this fiddly problem.
FSFE's reasoning for this seems to be:
Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I have seen various FSF FAQs over the years that have claimed that
> > distributing binaries linked against OpenSSL is ok, but these FAQs
> > have been mute on the matter of distribution as part of an
On Friday 08 June 2007 01:46, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Kern,
>
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Well, the above is total Greek to me. However, I must say that there is
> > absolutely no reason why Bacula would every accompany OpenSSL in any sense
> > of the t
Hi Kern,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Well, the above is total Greek to me. However, I must say that there is
> absolutely no reason why Bacula would every accompany OpenSSL in any sense
> of the the English meaning of accompany that I am aware of
Bacula doesn
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant,
Kern Sibbald writes:
> On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> Debian generally distributes OpenSSL logically near the packages that
>> dynamically link against it, so the major system component option is
>> not available to Debian ("... unless that component itself accompanies
On Thursday 07 June 2007 23:51, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
> > ECC.
> >
> > > And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
> >
> > Michael Poole gave a good ans
On Thursday 07 June 2007 20:15, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> > > the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it a
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
>> ECC.
>>
>> > And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
>>
>> Michael Poole gave a good answer.
>
> He didn
On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:50, Walter Landry wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> > the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE
> > agrees.
>
> I just read the contents of
>
>
On Thursday 07 June 2007 19:00, Michael Poole wrote:
> John Goerzen writes:
>
> > Kern approached me about this situation (see full correspondence below,
> > forwarded with his permission). He added that Bacula does not
> > statically link with OpenSSL, that OpenSSL support can be disabled at
> >
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> GnuTLS + libgcrypt + libtasn1 implements everything unless you need
> ECC.
>
> > And why does FSFE disagree with our interpretation?
>
> Michael Poole gave a good answer.
He didn't address the FSFE -- where are they taking a differ
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> > > the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:39AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> > the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE
> > agrees.
>
> I just read the contents o
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kern believes that he must remove the explicit OpenSSL exemption from
> the license in order to be fully GPL-compliant, and it appears that FSFE
> agrees.
I just read the contents of
/usr/share/doc/bacula-director-sqlite/copyright
I have reproduced it
John Goerzen writes:
> Kern approached me about this situation (see full correspondence below,
> forwarded with his permission). He added that Bacula does not
> statically link with OpenSSL, that OpenSSL support can be disabled at
> build time, and that FSFE does not believe that an exception cla
Hi legal folks,
Kern Sibbald, author of Bacula, contacted me today regarding its
license.
Some years ago, Jose Luis Tallon -- then the maintainer of Bacula --
asked Kern to add a clause to the Bacula license that would explicitly
permit linking with OpenSSL. Kern did. Kern also subsequently ass
29 matches
Mail list logo
