Re: Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)

Kern Sibbald wrote:

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.

I don't believe that Debian provides "legal views"...

My personal view is that GPLv3 is not compatible with the OpenSSL license.

The problematic part of the OpenSSL license is the "BSD advertising clause":

(From http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html)

The only way this might be compatible with GPLv3 is if this clause was permitted by one of the clauses in GPLv3 section 7, "Additional Terms". The only one under which it might fit is clause b):

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: ... * b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; (From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html)

However, this only permits requiring preservation of notices "in the material". An advertisement mentioning OpenSSL is not part of OpenSSL, and so this clause does not make point 3. of the OpenSSL license GPLv3-compatible.

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.

This seems the correct way forward in the long term.

Gerv

Reply to: