On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Peter <s_peter AT swissonline DOT ch> 
wrote:
>
> Salesman: Hey, this is our xyz product, it is so much better than the
> competition  and you can get a license for only $$$$!!!
> Customer: But it is Perl, so I can download it for free from the internet!
> Salesman: No, you can't, because we have added our secret sauce to Perl
> and because it is licensed under the Arthritic License, we do not have
> to reveal the secret! So you can only get it from us!!
> Customer: Ok, where do I have to sign?
>
> How does this relate to BackupPC?
>
> Not at all, I think. Because we do not want commercial business to
> resell "enriched" BackupPC applications.

Why not?  If someone had a commercial device that needed a bit of
proprietary code added to backuppc to access correctly, why would
anyone be against allowing it to be linked into backuppc?  That would
be the equivalent, say, of gluing a proprietary database client into a
perl module which is a better example of the need for dual-licensing.
Or even if someone created a much better user interface and packaged
it as a product - why would that be a problem as long as the original
still existed?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
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/