Hello Mark,
On 03/23/2012 05:43 PM, mark.bergman AT uphs.upenn DOT edu wrote:
> In the message dated: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:20:52 BST,
> The pithy ruminations from Kern Sibbald on
> <Re: [Bacula-users] [Bacula-devel] new jobs cannot spool until existing jobs
> fi
> nish despooling?> were:
> => Hello,
> =>
> => This is in response to the email from Jesper (see below). As it is
> => not always obvious, I am not in the least upset in any way. This is
>
> I'm glad you stated this so clearly, because, to me, you message below
> does sound like you are upset, resentful about the effort you have
> expended and the lack of community response, and regretful about some
> of the business decisions.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. To reiterate,
I am not at all upset or resentful about the time I have put in
or the community response. I have stated certain things that I
have observed, but that doesn't mean I am upset. From my
own personal stand point, I have never contributed cash to
any Open Source project, except once to Source Forge, which
really is not Open Source, so I didn't and don't expect the
the community to contribute cash.
As I pointed out, the community has been a *big* help in getting
Bacula to where it is, and I am certain that help will continue.
>
> => meant to be information about our future direction, and more
> => directly a response to Jesper's concerns and questions.
>
> Given that we currently depend on Bacula, I appreciate the information.
>
> [SNIP!]
>
> =>
> => A community member does not need SAN shared storage for
> => example -- or if you do and you consider yourself community, that is
> => fine with
> => me, but you will need an Enterprise contract. There are a *lot* of
First no matter what hardware or software you have, you are not in
violation of any Bacula license unless you redistribute Bacula and
refuse a valid request for the source to the person to who you
distributed the code (*extremely* unlikely).
The SAN shared storage is a Bacula Enterprise Storage daemon
plugin currently in testing with a *big* company in Switzerland.
It allows several Storage daemons to use the same autochanger
on a SAN. The fact that that plugin exists and you have SAN
doesn't in the least connect the two.
>
>
> I need some clarification on this point as soon as possible.
>
> I am using the Bacula community edition for a small educational research
> lab. We have a SAN. We use shared storage. It sounds like you are
> saying that we are in violation of the license in some way because of
> the hardware in our environment.
>
> If an Enterprise contract is required, as you state above, then I will
> begin to look for an alternative to Bacula immediately, and cease using
> the community edition as soon as possible.
No an Enterprise contract is not required for anyone. You don't
need to look for an alternative.
>
> The Bacula Enterprise license cost is well outside our budget.
>
I often hear remarks like that, but I spent 4 years at the University of
California,
then 6 getting a doctorate at the University of Maryland, then 6 more
years teaching and working in the Computer Science Center as a
staff member, and so I know that Universities and government
agencies spend a *lot* of money on hardware, hardware maintenance,
and software (not to mention salaries). It is a question of
getting one's need into the budget, which is usually defined
once a year. A very reasonable amount of money *is* there
if there is a desire and need.
Best regards,
Kern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
