On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky
<backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org> wrote:
>
> Chuck Peters wrote at about 10:12:40 -0400 on Thursday, April 2, 2009:
>
> > First couple of lines:
> >
> > # Shadowmountrsync
> > # Copyright Jeffrey J. Kosowsky December 2008
> > # Version 0.3.3 (April 2009)
> >
> > Copyright? By default I think that means Copyright all rights reserved,
> you
> > aren't legally allowing others to modify and redistribute it. Since you
> > posted an earlier version to sourceforge, shouldn't it have a GPL version 2
> > or 3 or something?
>
> That works for me. What it the (minimal) amount of appropriate text
> that I need to add for that to work.
I suggest saying something like:
# Shadowmountrsync
# Version 0.3.3 (April 2009)
# Copyright Jeffrey J. Kosowsky December 2008, 2009
# Copying, redistribution and modification are allowed under the terms
of Version
3
# of the GPL or any later version. The GPL can be found at many locations on
the Internet,
# or libraies. aka. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
David Lasker mentioned http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. It is 20
years old and looks like it was written by a lawyer.
You might want to also take a look at the FAQ.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Below are two of the FAQ's which seem relevant to Shadowmountrsync and
comment on them.
>>From the FAQ:
*Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the
program?*
Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who
gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are.
It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license, instead of
the license itself. But you cannot be sure that the URL will still be valid,
five years or ten years from now. Twenty years from now, URLs as we know
them today may no longer exist.
The only way to make sure that people who have copies of the program will
continue to be able to see the license, despite all the changes that will
happen in the network, is to include a copy of the license in the program.
*What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?*
If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple
all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
Coincidently the FAQ mentions a URL may not be available in 20 years and the
document on how to apply the GPL is 20 years old. I think it is reasonable
to argue that the Internet will be around and thousands if not millions of
copies of the GPL will be available even if a particualr URL has changed.
The Libarary of Congress and other libraries will also have paper and
electronic copies of the GPL.
Shadowmountrsync is currently more or less as long as the GPL and the FAQ
says you might "use a simple all-permissive license for it." I would argue
that Shadowmountrsync appears to be sigificant and useful enough that a GPL
is a good idea. Modified versions might be included with backuppc or other
backup programs in the future and if I wrote the program I would want to
benefit from the modifications the GPL allows.
With all that said including a copy of the GPL at a latter date would be a
good idea.
Thanks,
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
|
