I doubt my opinion holds much weight either way but if you want my opinion here it is;

As anyone would expect both sides say the other one is lying about many things. I can only assume, at this point, the truth lies somewhere in between. 

With that said I think this lawsuit only hurts Bacula. I never even heard of Bareos until this lawsuit came up. Then I started reading about it all over the place. Including a bunch of nonsense out of the Bacula camp like, “If you use Baroes software, Bacula will sue you” and “Braching is bad for open source”. All that really put a bad taste in my mouth about Bacula, especially because I could Identify with things the Bareos camp was saying like, “Bacula isn't updating the open source project” which was certainly true. Along with the fact that I find this whole open core model to be distasteful and anit-opensource in general. No Windows client binaries available without paying Bacula Systems for them for how long?

Most of this has no real baring on the cases merit But I think everything that has happened has hurt Bacula's reputation significantly and will likely hurt the project more than it will help the project if the lawsuit is successful. If the lawsuit fails then Bacula looks even worse. Also, while this lawsuit is carrying on, it only spotlights the fact that there isn't a really good open source competitor which will undoubtedly kick start numerous projects. (Not sure that is a bad thing but it is definitely bad for Bacula Systems)

I think if Bacula would have moved on and just focused on making a better product and selling services they would have continued to be the de facto standard backup solution on Linux for a long time.

That is my humble opinion. I truly wish you the best and I certainly do not condone the stealing of code.

Ben

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com> wrote:

Hello,

You are entitled to your opinion, but I find that such opinions don't carry as much weight as they would if you give some reason for it.

My reason is simple: Bacula Systems has spent quite a lot of money (over $1 Million) paying salaries to develop code for Bacula Enterprise.  It has given a very large chunk of that code (somewhere between 50-80%) back to the community and will give much more over time.  One of the persons involved in the lawsuit took proprietary code developed by Bacula Systems and released it in the public Bareos git repository without authorization.  He apparently has in his possession something around an additional 100,000 lines of proprietary code that he could also release.

I have devoted most of my time since 1998 to open source and spent 15 years developing the Bacula community version, which is 100% open source, and by creating up Bacula Systems, much more code than I could ever create alone will be contributed to the Bacula community project.

I believe that anyone who steals proprietary code and releases it publicly through an open source fork (Bareos) has very poor ethical standards and is damaging the whole open source community.

Best regards,
Kern

On 01.02.2015 18:33, Ben Erridge wrote:

As a former Bacula user I would like to express that I do not support this lawsuit. 

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com> wrote:

Hello,

I don't usually as for help on these lists, because I feel I am here to
build something for you (Bacula) and serve you rather than the other way
around.  If that intrigues you, please read on ...

The first hearing for the Bacula Systems vs Bareos lawsuit is coming up
the 9th of February.

I am sending this to everyone on the Bacula lists.  You may not be a
developer or a contributor, but as a Bacula user you can still show your
support for the Bacula project by filling out and sending in (scan +
email) an FLA. The issues are described below -- basically Bareos, which
is without any legal standing is nevertheless attacking my and thus
Bacula Systems right to have a proprietary version of Bacula.  If Bareos
wins, it may signal the end of the Bacula open source project as you
have known it for the last 15 years, because the major contributor to
the Bacula community version is Bacula Systems, and Bacula Systems
would no longer be in a position to contribute to the Bacula project.

Please help the Bacula project by printing, signing, and sending the
attached FLA to me by post, or by scanning it and sending it by email
as an attachment (all pages, please).

More details:

Unfortunately since Bareos forked the Bacula code myself, Bacula, and
Bacula Systems have been challenged by a former Bacula developer who
says I misled him in signing the FLA as he did in May of 2010. He claims
that he did not know I intended to take Bacula into the Enterprise
market with proprietary code. Furthermore, he claims (with no real
basis, in my opinion) that I do not have FLAs from everyone who
contributed and that the project must start as a dual licensed project
(totally untrue).  Note, Bacula Systems was formed in 2008, but dual
licensing only started in the 2011-2012 time frame.

Concerning Bacula Systems having a proprietary version of Bacula, as you
probably know the FSFE, Bacula Systems and me representing the Bacula
community have recently (Sept 2013) signed an agreement where the
features developed by Bacula Systems for fee paying customers will be
migrated overtime into the community version (many are migrated in the
next community version). In fact, since 2008, Bacula Systems has been
by far the major contributor of code to the Bacula community version by
far. By creating Bacula Systems and signing the agreement with the FSFE,
I have found a way to ensure the sustainability of Bacula community from
fees paid for by enterprise clients that permit implementing new Bacula
Enterprise features that will flow back to the community version. For
me, this ensures a bright future for Bacula both in the Enterprise
market and in the community, and obviously I am very happy about it.

All my plans for the future of Bacula could go up in smoke
because according to Bareos and this former Bacula developer, in May of
2010 when I solicited a number of FLAs, I was not
explicit enough in saying that Bacula Systems could develop a
proprietary version. Obviously I believe this is ridiculous.  I would be
surprised, but if you believe that I mislead you or the community at any
time, I am very sorry, and I would appreciate it if you would tell me
what you think.

For the above reasons, we are asking everyone who contributed to sign an
FLA, otherwise, because of Bareos and this former developer we may be
required to remove or rewrite contributions for which we do not have a
more current FLA.

For the future of Bacula, I would really appreciate it if you would fill
out, sign, and send the new FLA version 7.0, attached to this email, to
me by post or scanned copy. This will ensure that I hold a clear and
valid copyright for everything and that Bacula and Bacula Systems can
continue to grow. This request is very unusual, but your participation
would be a very nice vote of confidence.  In addition, if you have ever
contributed anything -- even something very small where we do not
usually require an FLA, it would be even a more significant help to the
Bacula project.

Being a programmer myself, I know that this administration stuff is
unpleasant.

If you have questions see below ...

Thank you for your contribution(s) to and/or support for the Bacula project.

Best regards,
Kern
Bacula Project Manager

Q: I don't understand the FLA.
A: Yes, it has a number of technical points and lots of words to make
sure there is no problems due to different laws in different countries,
and to avoid problems of possible multiple versions.  The basic points
for the Bacula project are:

  1. You wrote some code/documentation/other and you contributed it to
     the Bacula project.
  2. In order for the Bacula project and Bacula Systems to be able to
     use the code, you assign the copyright to me (Kern Sibbald).
  3. I then give back to you a license to use your code as you want.
  4. Bottom line, we can both legally use the code.

Q: I already signed an FLA is this one necessary?
A: Yes, more than ever, because it shows your support for Bacula and me,
and without it I may need to re-write your contribution, which would be
a set back for the community.

Q: I already signed one with the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE),
won't signing this one be a conflict?
A: The attached FLA is written to permit signing both agreements without
conflict.

Q: I don't think my contribution is important enough to warrant an FLA.
A: Strictly speaking if you contributed only a couple lines or a simple
fix, that is probably true, but I have learned that with legal matters
it is better to be safe than sorry, and more than anything else, it
shows your support and solidarity with Bacula and myself.

Q: I am too busy.
A: Yes, I understand that. I am too busy to hassle you for this, but I
am doing it to cover all bases possible to keep the community and Bacula
Systems working to continue to develop and improve Bacula even when I
retire from the project.

Q: I don't have a scanner.
A: Please send it by post, or take a pictures of all the pages with your
mobile telephone (or camera) and email them to me.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

--

Benjamin Erridge

--

Benjamin Erridge