On 07/16/2015 04:25 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I see that bareos is, actually, the descendent of bacula. I've been >> looking at some of the documentation, and searching, but one thing I'd >> like to find out, before I try to implement it, and that I haven't found >> yet: am I going to have to play games, to get it to back up to online >> storage, as opposed to tape? (I suppose I'm thinking tar, here, as "no >> games".) Is there some default setup for this scenario? >> > Never mind. More googling found it. > > Anyone know if this will ever make it into one of the std. repos, or is > there a lawsuit ongoing, or....? There is not an ongoing lawsuit the best I can tell (there is a settled confidential one) .. BUT .. there is also nothing wrong with bacula charging for a license, especially in an enterprise environment (as long as they are playing nicely with all open source licenses, etc). I would therefore not necessarily expect to see a change in RHEL with respect to this issue. At least not specifically because of $$$ for licenses. I have no inside information of any kind .. but going on the rules for EPEL (ie, not interfering with RHEL packages) and not necessarily seeing a problem for RHEL (at least RHEL 7) from a licensing perspective, I personally would expect that bareos MIGHT replace bacula at some point in future versions of Fedora and then that MIGHT be rolled into RHEL 8 and then make it into CentOS as part of that version. Again, I have no direct knowledge, but that would be my expectation. Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
