+ 2014-02-18 Tue 22:30, Florian Weimer fw@deneb.enyo.de:
The bit that contradicts directly what you are saying is:
FSFE does not endorse the existence of a non-free version, but FSFE cannot forbid authors to execute the rights granted by copyright in their own work, as long as this does not limit the scope of fiduciary's exclusive license.
The web page has markedly different content from the PDF file. You need to read the latter and check what software is covered.
What is different exactly? Are you implying that the statement above is not true? Please give arguments and reasonings instead of simply implying such things.
You wrote earlier that FSFE granted permission for proprietary software. That is simply untrue and if you believe otherwise, you did not understand the Bacula agreement, or you did not not understand what’s in FSFE’s legal power as a fiduciary under the FLA.
The permission to make proprietary software was absolutely not granted by FSFE, but directly by developers (who hold copyright in their contributions).
The wording in the agreement does not restrict its scope to Bacula code that had already been licensed to Bacula Systems by its authors.
The agreement aims at resolving a lot of issues because it was a messy situation involving multiple agreements in several steps over the years; that does not mean that FSFE endorses proprietary software. I stand by what I wrote: the permission to make proprietary software was not granted by FSFE.
Please be more explicit in your response instead of just making vague accusations that FSFE endorses proprietary software. Thanks.