Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released

[Michael Terry]

I know it's easy to sound accusatory or petty when talking about legal
issues, particularly when you don't know what you're talking about, as
I don't.  But I don't mean to be!

I think GPLv2 is a fine license, and I would in theory contribute to a
GPLv2 duplicity.  However, I have two concerns with this move:

1) How it was done.  It was without explanation, warning, or an
attempt to get the permission of copyright holders.  Ian is right in
that you can go from GPLv2 to GPLv3 fine (since presumably you used
the 'or later' wording of GPLv2), but you can't go back down.  So the
previous bump to v3 was fine, but this move would involve a
relicensing effort for all patches since the GPLv3 change.

2) The rationale.  While GPLv2 is fine, GPLv3 is arguably better.  It
adds specific protections.  But you say you've had commercial
interests that don't want to contribute to duplicity because of what?
The patent or tivoization clauses?  Does that mean that the commercial
interests specifically have plans to contribute patented code or
tivoize duplicity?  In which case it makes me much less excited about
relicencing in order to allow that.

I happen to work with a lawyer who specializes in open source law..  I
can ask him on Monday what the legal obligations are for relicensing
to GPLv2, if you wanted to go ahead with this move.

-mt