Sorry,
this is starting to get weird.
I, perhaps mistakenly, raised the question and I would like to bring it back to
origins.
Il 20/05/2016 00:19, Les Mikesell ha scritto:
> 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?
This is not possible.
BackupPC is GPL2.
If You link whatever to it, also that part falls unto the GPL and You *must*
release the sources.
This has happened before (example coming to mind is the "spontaneous"
contribution of
objective-c frontend to gcc sources, but that's not the only example).
Same for for the "much better user interface": if it's linked in then it falls
under the GPL umbrella.
Things would have been different if original License would have ben LGPL, but
that's not the case.
I admit the concept of "linking" in a language like Perl is a bit vague, but I
think there are precedents.
Writing a different, independent, UI using only the published interfaces (i.e.:
updating directly
the various config files) is a completely different story... and a completely
different Project,
with a (possibly) completely different License.
----
Scenario I wanted to prevent is:
- someone makes a large (or simply critical) addition to BackupPC
- it gets committed and becomes integral part of BackupPC.
- sometime in the future contributor (or his employer) decides BackupPC cannot
use
anymore its "Intellectual Property" (which may extend beyond specific
coding).
- BackupPC might remain crippled for a long time until someone finds a way
around
the mess.
I do not know if this scenario is likely to happen or not, I would like to
understand
if it is at all *possible* and, if it is, how to prevent it (better safe then
sorry).
I do agree flat transfer of copyright (CLA) solves the problem, but opens other,
potentially worse, scenarios.
Question is: is there someone who have a positive answer?
Please note this is a question for a lawyer.
It's well known that "rule of thumb" and "law" do not mix (that's true in all
Countries,
not only in the States, who have a record on litigation).
Otherwise I propose to ask FSF for advise.
Regards
Mauro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
|
