From: Kern Sibbald Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:02:10 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Clarify license points X-Git-Tag: Release-7.0.0~6148 X-Git-Url: https://git.sur5r.net/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=80a0acb160ddfe99580108dec1daa8a3d04afb1a;p=bacula%2Fbacula 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 fffaf84ab9..0a79ee6cb4 100644 --- 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: