Update

[bacula/bacula] / bacula / LICENSE

diff --git a/bacula/LICENSE b/bacula/LICENSE
index fffaf84ab968e07b1d53502cdeeb7be162b3dcdd..e105b738836f2bde058cffea9091f9fe404f254d 100644 (file)
--- a/bacula/LICENSE
+++ b/bacula/LICENSE
@@ -24,11 +24,13 @@ 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. 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.
+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.
              
 
 IP rights:
@@ -125,6 +127,12 @@ Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their
 copyright holder(s) under the GPL. These software files are
 clearly marked as such.
 
+Bacula can be enabled with data encryption and/or communications
+encryption. If this is the case, you will be including OpenSSL code that
+that contains cryptographic software written by Eric Young
+(eay@cryptsoft.com) and also software written by Tim Hudson
+(tjh@cryptsoft.com).
+
 There are parts of Bacula that are licensed under the LGPL so
 that they may be used in proprietary code to interface with
 Bacula.