[10:38:21] hello [15:57:23] Is test2 on mw1017? [20:55:53] Do we still use bacula? https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/faq-bacula.html [20:55:53] Nemo_bis: we do [20:55:53] Nemo_bis: did it switch to a non-FLOSS license? [20:55:54] No or not yet https://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150414-01.html [20:55:54] if you use backup::set and stuff from module/backup in puppet, that is bacula in the back [20:55:54] No mentions of license changes on their website. [20:55:54] I guess for now the main "risk" is lack of clarity on what the attribution requirements are. FSFE implies Kern Sibbald may not hold copyright on the entire codebase [20:56:35] what does Kern say why he did this? [20:57:53] Dunno. Latest info on http://blog.bacula.org/category/kerns-blog/ are two posts, one for and one against forking. :) [20:59:56] "My goal is to have the Bacula.org code covered by FLAs (or their equivalent) that are clear and consistent" http://blog.bacula.org/bacula-status-report-15-april-2015/ [20:59:56] So he gives no reason. :) [21:01:25] I suspect Kern requested something that FSFE lawyers disagreed with [21:01:30] Nemo_bis: heh ok, so let's assume there was some drama on mailing lists [21:01:41] thus the agreement expired until they reach a new agreement [21:03:24] http://blog.bacula.org/author/kern/ [21:04:03] Platonides: the FSFE announcement says that some people gave copyright to Kern, some to FSFE [21:04:08] "As the project has grown and become more global and solid, I feel that I can more efficiently manage this responsibility myself, and I thank the FSFE for their help over the years." [21:04:17] And then by transitivity the copyright given to kern went to FSFE as well [21:04:50] (The last line is my interpretation) [21:05:26] Nemo_bis, yes I think that part was clear [21:05:48] "as a result of this the FSFE shall be considered the assignee of all copyrights upon any and all contributions to the Bacula software." [21:05:50] So by "consistency" he means "everything in my control only" :p [21:12:41] "more efficiently manage"