Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)

Hello Shane,

Bacula is nearing the end of a development cycle and the next version will be released in a matter of weeks, so I would like to revisit the problem that recently came up with the Bacula license. My purpose is not to debate the issues but rather come up with a plan forward for Bacula so that all distributions can use it with OpenSSL or any other Open Source code without problems. Please excuse me if I provide you with a bit of my reasoning and thoughts -- the idea is to help you target responses so I can end up with an accpetable solution.

History: Bacula originally used the GPL v2 license, but I added some modifications to it -- most if not all are (IMO) now contained in the GPL v3. However, some of my original modifications created objections with Debian, so I removed them. In addition, Debian has an issue with distributing Bacula linked with OpenSSL and as a consequence, I added a modification to the GPL permitting Debian to link Bacula with OpenSSL.

In more recent discussions with you, it seems that some of my modifications to the GPL (particularly the "Debian" clause) created a legal problem with Fedora and hence Red Hat because the GPL v2 is incompatible with the OpenSSL license and because there are about 10-20 files in the Bacula source that are copyrighted by third-parties under the GPL, so by modifying my license, I was or could have been technically violating their licenses.

Most recently, I removed all modifications I had made to the GPL so the Bacula code written by myself and Bacula contributors is copyrighted under GPL v2.

Where we are: As the Bacula source code currently stands, I expect that since it is pure GPL that it is acceptable as is to most distros. However, my understanding is that Debian will not be able to build the next version with OpenSSL due to their interpretation of the GPL. I find this a pity -- particularly because Debian was the first distro to officially package Bacula, and because I am also moving my systems over time to a Debian base.

What I would like: I would like Bacula to be able to be freely used by all distros without licensing problems with any Open Source software including OpenSSL.

How do we get there? It seems to me that there are a number of alternatives:

  1. Convert Bacula to use gnutls. One Debian user is working on this, but it is not a small nor an easy project. And though it is something I consider very worthwhile for Bacula to work with gnutls, it doesn't resolve the problem of using Bacula with OpenSSL.

  2. You recently mentioned to me that GPL v3 may be a solution. Like Linus, I don't see any reason to switch to GPL v3, but if using GPL v3 makes Bacula compatible with OpenSSL AND all distros are happy with that, it seems to me to be an easy solution. I know that GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache license, but can you confirm whether or not it is compatible with whatever OpenSSL uses? I would also appreciate having Debian's legal view on this question.

  3. Barring item 2, it seems to me that the only solution is to eliminate all third party software from Bacula and change the license to less restrictive one that permits Bacula being linked with any Open Source software.

Does anyone see any other solutions that I am missing?

If at all possible, I would like to get at least the direction on how to resolve this defined within the next several weeks. If alternative 2 is viable, it is something that I can probably do for release 2.2.0.

Best regards,

Kern

Reply to: