Clarify license points

git-svn-id: https://bacula.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/bacula/trunk@4998 91ce42f0-d328-0410-95d8-f526ca767f89

diff --git a/bacula/LICENSE b/bacula/LICENSE
index fffaf84ab968e07b1d53502cdeeb7be162b3dcdd..0a79ee6cb4b6f83d2112732d5f527a8682307d8d 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: