Simone Caronni wrote: > http://www.mail-archive.com/bacula-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg57308.html Hmmm, that guy is painting a somewhat different picture of the situation of the 2 projects than your Change page. In particular, he claims the community version is not dead. (Is that credible?) (He does admit that Bacula is using the crippleware business model though.) His vague allegations of copyright infringement in Bareos lack any kind of details required to verify them though. > https://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/copyright_bacula_bareos.html And of course the Bareos folks claim that there isn't any infringement. So, whom can Fedora believe in this dispute? What if the vague allegations are really just FUD (as Bareos is claiming)? Then we'd be blocking a project based only on FUD and encouraging more such FUD being spread to deny competitors a place in Fedora… Another thing that strikes me as very odd is that Bacula is apparently copyrighted by the FSFE, yet they use the crippleware business model. I thought the FSF (and the FSFE) were strongly against crippleware (or "Open Core" as they called it once in an essay)! That said, the FSFE is probably the way out of this mess. If they are the real copyright holders, we just need to contact THEM about the issue and get a statement from them, ignoring the Bacula guy entirely. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
