Re: Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)

Le vendredi 13 juillet 2007 à 07:20 +0200, Kern Sibbald a écrit :

Then, unless I have seriously misunderstood the reworded system libraries exception, I think relicensing Bacula under the GPLv3 (or dual-licensing under v2 and v3) should be fine for Debian.

Sorry, but could you run it by me one more time why GPL v3 will work for Debian and why GPL v2 will not. The problem on GPL v2 for me was I needed to make an exception, which I cannot do without violating the 3rd party GPL licensed code I use. Why does GPL v3 resolve this? From what I understood, you are saying that in GPL v3 any separate object code does not require releasing the source for that object code -- i.e. it is now possible for a GPLed program to link to a separate object that is built from proprietary source?

In my opinion the GPLv3 is more liberal with the licensing of the system libraries. This is what makes Nexenta legal now (it links dpkg which is GPL to the Solaris libc which is CDDL) and it applies to the Bacula case as well.

Cheers,

.''. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. . ' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to - our own. Resistance is futile.

Reply to: