[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released
From: |
Kenneth Loafman |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:21:34 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Michael Terry wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Kenneth Loafman <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I know what Tivoization is and they can't do that. The entire source of
>> their product is available for download and nothing is missing. You
>> could rebuild the system and use your own version if you wanted. That
>> is not a problem. As to patents, no, they are FOSS supporters. They
>> just released a major piece of software as open source themselves, so I
>> doubt this is the case at all.
>
> I figured you did know tivoization, since you didn't act confused when
> I mentioned it before. :) I just included the link to help other
> people on the thread. Again, I'm not trying to be aggressive. Please
> read my emails in the kindest possible way. :)
>
> So I had a real quick chat with Andrew the Lawyer. He was busy, so I
> didn't get a full legal counseling. He did say:
>
> 1. Apparently the legal test for what consitutes a copyrightable
> work/patch is having 'a modicum of originality'.
>
> 2. It's true that one can't relicense from GPLv3 to GPLv2 unless all
> copyright holders release their code under GPLv2. If they don't, the
> code has to be redeveloped, presumably under some sort of 'clean room'
> environment. As far as the GPLv3 is concerned, a relicense to GPLv2
> is in the same boat as if you relicensed to a completely unrelated
> license like BSD.
>
> So, that seems to indicate to me that all people who submitted patches
> since duplicity switched to GPLv3 have to OK this relicensing. Until
> that happens, you legally don't have the right to distribute a GPLv2
> version of current duplicity.
>
> So I asked Andrew the Lawyer 'What if this company writes the code
> under GPLv2+ and Ken takes the code as GPLv3+' (since their patches
> would allow you take them as a later version of the GPL). The FSF's
> FAQ says that this doesn't mean the company would give up its patent
> rights [1]. Which is kind of an odd loophole to me. But maybe
> whatever concerns they have with GPLv2 would be solved by doing this,
> since apparently not all the protections of the GPLv3 apply in this
> case. Andrew wasn't familiar with this part of the license or FAQ.
> Although, reading that license, if they subsequently 'conveyed' (i.e.
> distributed) a GLPv3 duplicity, they would be activating the patent
> (and maybe other parts) of the GPLv3.
>
> So... If the company in question is adamant, I see at least two options:
>
> 1) They could use the older version of duplicity that was released
> under the GPLv2+ (again, assuming old duplicity did in fact use the
> or-later wording).
> 1a) If they also release their patches as GPLv2+, we could optionally
> take their patches as GPLv3 and apply them to trunk.
>
> 2) We engage in a relicensing effort, contacting all the contributors
> that wrote a patch that shows a 'modicum of originality' and get them
> to agree to relicense.
>
> Presumably #2 would involve explaining to contributors why the
> relicense is a good thing, so I'm curious to hear the company's
> explanation.
>
> Again, I don't mean to be a dick even though I know this next sentence
> sounds dickish, but here goes: It would be a good-faith showing on
> your part to back out the GPLv2 relicensing and release a version that
> you are legally allowed to distribute.
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense
I know you are not being aggressive, and I appreciate it.
As to who to contact re copyright issues, it would have to involve a bit
more than a simple bug fix (a few lines) and would have to still be in
the current code (some modules completely rewritten). This will reduce
the list of copyright owners to a small number.
I will release a new version with the GPLv2 version backed out today.
I really bollixed up the process on this one. My apologies to all that
have contributed. I hope we can come to an agreement on this soon and
get on with improving duplicity big time.
...Ken
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Ian Barton, 2009/02/01
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Michael Terry, 2009/02/01
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Kenneth Loafman, 2009/02/01
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Ian Barton, 2009/02/01
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Michael Terry, 2009/02/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Kenneth Loafman, 2009/02/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Michael Terry, 2009/02/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released,
Kenneth Loafman <=
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Version 0.5.07 Released, Ian Barton, 2009/02/02