On 07/19/2015 11:04 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > 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 Looking in rawhide right now (where the latest things get rolled in) there is bacula an no bareos right now (which would be for Fedora 23)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
