From 119fe97d732dccfa102be0065d48f6873dbd6284 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kern Sibbald Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:46:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify some license notes git-svn-id: https://bacula.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/bacula/trunk@4995 91ce42f0-d328-0410-95d8-f526ca767f89 --- bacula/LICENSE | 15 +++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/bacula/LICENSE b/bacula/LICENSE index 5df38ec58d..fffaf84ab9 100644 --- a/bacula/LICENSE +++ b/bacula/LICENSE @@ -19,10 +19,17 @@ What follows is information from the authors of the code: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL. -However, it does use the 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. +However, if configured with encryption Bacula does use the +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. + IP rights: Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the -- 2.39.5