BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] Native Window version of rsync

2008-11-19 22:47:36
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Native Window version of rsync
From: dan <dandenson AT gmail DOT com>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:45:33 -0700
excuse me for arguing a few of these...

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM, David Rees <drees76 AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:34 PM, dan <dandenson AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> the rync algorythm is actually part of the GPL code released by Andrew
> Tridgell.

Yes, it is, but you can not Copyright algorithms, and you can't
protect them from reverse engineering. You can patent an algorithm,
but I know of no such patents on the algorithms used by rsync (not
that I've looked).

I believe this is somewhat of a grey area.  You will find many references of this going either way on google.
 


> Like I said, GPL is viral.  Tridgell released this algorythm as a part of
> rsync undel GPL so use of the exact algorythm requires a GPL license.

Please stop using the term viral, as the GPL is not viral.  Google it.
 The terms of which GPLed software is licensed are quite clear to
those who wish to read the license.

I suppose the term viral implies evil or bad which is not what I meant to say.  What I mean is that GPL code will require derivative code to also be GPL.  This is clear and one of the few real issues that man companies have and partly why BSD licenses and other non-GPL open source licenses have gained some popularity.  As many people here will agree, the GPL has a lot of good qualities and I am a supporter.
 


> You may reverse engineer the functionality but you cannot use the algoryth,
> just a work-alike.

This is not true.

this is really just an extension of the previous point.  It can go either way.
 


> If you have even looked at the code for rsync, you will likely be infringing
> on the GPL if you license this anything but GPL.

This coud be true which is why I bought up my concern.  That is why if
there is any doubt, one should always perform a clean-room reverse
engineering effort to produce compatible works.

a clean room easily clears you from GPL violation.  Additionally you might get
 


> I am not some GPL nazi, I am just making this point.

> You might run into some other problems if using GPL code in a C# environment
> if you are using shared libraries that are not GPL.

Another myth. Please stop spreading FUD.

-Dave

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url="">
_______________________________________________
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/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
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/