From toma at kovoks.nl Wed Jan 6 13:39:11 2010 From: toma at kovoks.nl (Tom Albers) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:39:11 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Developer wanted! Message-ID: <3120675.B6DkH6qIHp@kovoks.nl> Hi, The following is a request for a developer who wants to implement below feature. We are prepared to pay someone to implement this as it has priority for us. Short Problem description: Housekeeping removes files from the store based on the actual file date and not on the deletion time. Long Problem description: Due to some reason my mail archive was deleted on my server. Each mail in the maildir has the date it arrived on the Cyrus mail server. I then looked in the backup and restored the archive. ?But it seems Housekeeping has cleaned up and deleted everything permanently up to september 2009. So I lost my archive from 1998 - september 2009. This caused because housekeeping looks at the actual file date and does not look at the actual deletion time. Solution: Delete files based on a setting in the config. That way you can set the amount of days after the file has to be deleted from the archive after it has been removed from the origin. It should no longer look at the file date to determine if it has to be removed or not. Terms of success: - Implement above solution, or discuss another solution on this list and after approval implement that. - Implement this in the next month or so. - The current housekeeping system should be unaffected, so this is purely an optional way of handling deleted files. - Needs to be Open Source and the new code should match the license of the current code involved. - Needs to be merged back into boxbackup main development tree. If you are interested in implementing this, please contact me at toma at kovoks.nl or chat with me at toma at jabber.kovoks.nl. We have no problem in paying you for this feature. State your price and skills in a private mail to me, we will select the best offer. We will transfer the money after all terms of success listed above are completed and verified by us*. Discussions about the solution should happen on this list. Best, Tom Albers *) to be clear: if the code will not be added by the boxbackup developers to bockbackup, we will not accept the solution and we will not pay out, so it is important the possible solution and implementation is discussed with those developers. Also you have to hunt them down for merging it in the tree before you get payed. -- KovoKs B.V. KvK: 11033334 From s.adam at diffingo.com Wed Jan 13 20:03:16 2010 From: s.adam at diffingo.com (Stewart Adam) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:03:16 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing Message-ID: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> Hello, I recently tried to get Box Backup into Fedora and I found out after a review from the Fedora legal team that the Box Backup license is considered nonfree (comment #6): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513320 I was wondering if Chris & the other Box Backup developers would consider making the minor change mentioned in the bug comment so that it can be entered into the Fedora repositories and more importantly, to remove the GPL incompatibility. Thanks and regards, Stewart From chris at qwirx.com Thu Jan 14 23:27:00 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:27:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> References: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> Message-ID: Hi Stewart, On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Stewart Adam wrote: > I recently tried to get Box Backup into Fedora and I found out after a > review from the Fedora legal team that the Box Backup license is > considered nonfree (comment #6): > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513320 > > I was wondering if Chris & the other Box Backup developers would > consider making the minor change mentioned in the bug comment so that it > can be entered into the Fedora repositories and more importantly, to > remove the GPL incompatibility. I'd like to, but it's not up to me as I'm not the copyright holder. Ben would have to agree to it. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From lists at ebourne.me.uk Fri Jan 15 00:33:50 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:03:50 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> References: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> Message-ID: <1263515630.2233.24.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 15:03 -0500, Stewart Adam wrote: > Hello, > > I recently tried to get Box Backup into Fedora and I found out after a > review from the Fedora legal team that the Box Backup license is > considered nonfree (comment #6): > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513320 > > I was wondering if Chris & the other Box Backup developers would > consider making the minor change mentioned in the bug comment so that it > can be entered into the Fedora repositories and more importantly, to > remove the GPL incompatibility. Unfortunately the archives are down at the moment. This has been discussed before although a resolution was never carried through. The good news is that this is likely resolvable, Ben has previously stated the possibility of dropping the advertising clause (see attached email which is all I have on the subject). Of course he wrote most of the code so is the biggest stakeholder here. As to Chris and I we've both previously expressed desire to move to a standard BSD licence (or even better GPL). There are a few other contributors, can't remember their position though I doubt any would object to removing the advertising clause. Cheers, Martin PS. Does everyone else get duplicate messages on this list since it was restored? -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Ben Summers Subject: [Box Backup-dev] Licensing issues Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:55:08 +0000 Size: 5445 URL: From james at netinertia.co.uk Fri Jan 15 08:38:46 2010 From: james at netinertia.co.uk (James O'Gorman) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:38:46 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1263515630.2233.24.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <4B4E2704.9060808@diffingo.com> <1263515630.2233.24.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <6C7B951E-D01C-42DA-9897-873D810E1F74@netinertia.co.uk> Hi Martin, On 15 Jan 2010, at 00:33, Martin Ebourne wrote: > As to Chris and I we've both previously expressed desire to move to a > standard BSD licence (or even better GPL). There are a few other > contributors, can't remember their position though I doubt any would > object to removing the advertising clause. Although my contributions in code have been minor, I tend to prefer the standard BSD license. > PS. Does everyone else get duplicate messages on this list since it was > restored? Looks like you have two addresses subscribed. It's possible one of them was previously marked 'nomail' and I missed that when adding it to the new listserver. Drop me a line privately if you like. James From ben at fluffy.co.uk Fri Jan 15 12:23:30 2010 From: ben at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:23:30 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing Message-ID: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Martin Ebourne wrote: > Unfortunately the archives are down at the moment. This has been > discussed before although a resolution was never carried through. The > good news is that this is likely resolvable, Ben has previously stated > the possibility of dropping the advertising clause (see attached email > which is all I have on the subject). Of course he wrote most of the > code > so is the biggest stakeholder here. > > As to Chris and I we've both previously expressed desire to move to a > standard BSD licence (or even better GPL). There are a few other > contributors, can't remember their position though I doubt any would > object to removing the advertising clause. I am happy to change the code I wrote to the standard BSD license. The advertising clause is no longer fair, as Chris Wilson has taken over. I will leave it to Chris and the community to decide whether or not there should be an advertising clause, and if there is, what it should say. I am not, however, willing to change the license to GPL because I believe the 'Box libraries' are of general utility. I know this will complicate things, but as a compromise I will, at Chris and the community's request, relicense the Box Backup specific code I wrote as GPL if the general purpose libraries are left with the BSD license. I nominate Chris Wilson to adjudicate and make the final decision. :-) Ben -- http://bens.me.uk From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 15 13:02:43 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:02:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Ben Summers wrote: > I am happy to change the code I wrote to the standard BSD license. I assume we are talking about changing some of the code to the 3-clause version of the BSD license (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD). > The advertising clause is no longer fair, as Chris Wilson has taken > over. I will leave it to Chris and the community to decide whether or > not there should be an advertising clause, and if there is, what it > should say. > > I am not, however, willing to change the license to GPL because I > believe the 'Box libraries' are of general utility. I know this will > complicate things, but as a compromise I will, at Chris and the > community's request, relicense the Box Backup specific code I wrote as > GPL if the general purpose libraries are left with the BSD license. > > I nominate Chris Wilson to adjudicate and make the final decision. :-) My current feeling on this is that I don't want the code that we wrote to be used by some commercial company in a closed-source product without paying us anything or even crediting us. So I feel that anyone wishing to use our code should do one of the following three: 1. open source their code as well, under similar terms 2. credit us (Ben Summers and contributors) in the documentation 3. negotiate terms for a commercial license with the copyright holders (I don't particularly care about the advertising clause). The current license forces them to do either 2 or 3. If the license was changed to 2-clause BSD, they would not have to do any of the above. If it was changed to 3-clause BSD they would still have to do either 2 or 3. If a significant part of the code (the backup engine) was GPL, they would have to do either 1 and 2, or 3. I have a preference for GPL where possible, to strengthen open-source projects against commercial competition. However I would accept relicensing the whole thing under 3-clause BSD if that was preferred by other contributors. My only reason for considering this change at all is Fedora's issue with the license. I would rather not have to waste cycles on this issue. I must say I'm skeptical about and unhappy with their conclusion that the advertising clause makes the software non-free and therefore it cannot be included in Fedora. We could still push back on it. Note that Microsoft apparently ignores the advertising clause: did you ever see "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory" on an advert for Windows? Does anyone have any objection to the proposed relicensing as follows: bin/*, lib/backup*, test/backup* to GPL The rest of lib/* to 3-clause BSD Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From lists at ebourne.me.uk Fri Jan 15 22:23:41 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:53:41 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <1263594221.2233.199.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:02 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > My current feeling on this is that I don't want the code that we wrote to > be used by some commercial company in a closed-source product without > paying us anything or even crediting us. So I feel that anyone wishing to > use our code should do one of the following three: > > 1. open source their code as well, under similar terms > > 2. credit us (Ben Summers and contributors) in the documentation > > 3. negotiate terms for a commercial license with the copyright holders > > (I don't particularly care about the advertising clause). > > The current license forces them to do either 2 or 3. If the license was > changed to 2-clause BSD, they would not have to do any of the above. If it > was changed to 3-clause BSD they would still have to do either 2 or 3. If > a significant part of the code (the backup engine) was GPL, they would > have to do either 1 and 2, or 3. I think there might be some confusion here. The 3 clause BSD licence doesn't require attribution so doesn't achieve (2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > I have a preference for GPL where possible, to strengthen open-source > projects against commercial competition. However I would accept > relicensing the whole thing under 3-clause BSD if that was preferred by > other contributors. > > My only reason for considering this change at all is Fedora's issue with > the license. I would rather not have to waste cycles on this issue. I must > say I'm skeptical about and unhappy with their conclusion that the > advertising clause makes the software non-free and therefore it cannot be > included in Fedora. We could still push back on it. Fedora's actually quite lenient here, spot is saying (in the bug) that the current advertising clause is badly worded and a rewording of it to match the normal 4 clause BSD licence would be sufficient. I'm actually a little surprised because the 4 clause BSD isn't even OSI approved: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php The reason why the advertising clause is problematic is covered here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > Note that Microsoft apparently ignores the advertising clause: did you > ever see "This product includes software developed by the University of > California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory" on an advert for Windows? Unfortunately Microsoft is well understood to be a bad citizen. Even when they appear to be doing the right thing (with great fanfare too) they are in fact only trying to cover up that they've been violating the law: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/ I've never heard of anyone enforcing a BSD licence whereas people do enforce GPL, hence why this particular case was corrected. > Does anyone have any objection to the proposed relicensing as follows: > > bin/*, lib/backup*, test/backup* to GPL > The rest of lib/* to 3-clause BSD Works for me. Cheers, Martin From maillist at diffingo.com Fri Jan 15 23:00:46 2010 From: maillist at diffingo.com (Stewart Adam) Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:00:46 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B50F39E.6010908@diffingo.com> On 2010/01/15 8:02 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: >> I am not, however, willing to change the license to GPL because I >> believe the 'Box libraries' are of general utility. I know this will >> complicate things, but as a compromise I will, at Chris and the >> community's request, relicense the Box Backup specific code I wrote as >> GPL if the general purpose libraries are left with the BSD license. >> >> I nominate Chris Wilson to adjudicate and make the final decision. :-) > > My current feeling on this is that I don't want the code that we wrote > to be used by some commercial company in a closed-source product without > paying us anything or even crediting us. Perhaps a dual-license approach (like Qt) would be best? This way you can have one set of rules for open source software and another for commercial. And in all cases, the core libraries can be kept as BSD only as Ben wished. Stewart From fiji at limey.net Mon Jan 11 04:28:26 2010 From: fiji at limey.net (Ben Bennett) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:28:26 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Hard Links & Ignoring directories In-Reply-To: References: <20090622024304.GA18203@ayup.limey.net> Message-ID: <20100111042826.GA14646@ayup.limey.net> Resurrecting this from the email vaults because the bug popped back up. I am running 0.11rc5. On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:34:25AM +0300, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Ben Bennett wrote: > >> Question the second. I keep getting: Jun 21 22:24:56 ayup >> bbackupd[24222]: WARNING: Failed to access file: /home/jb/.gvfs: >> Permission denied >> >> Which while true is irritating because I have: > > Thanks for the report. Should be fixed now. Please could you try updating > to the latest trunk version and see if that fixes this problem? > I'm getting: > sudo bbackupquery "compare -aq" quit ... WARNING: Exception thrown: CommonException(OSFileError) at BackupQueries.cpp(1592) Exception: Common OSFileError (Error accessing a file. Check permissions.) (1/9) As a reminder, the problem occurs when there is a .gvfs mounted. I have a line in the conf to exclude .gvfs dirs, but it seems to stat the directory before it checks the exclude rules. As another annoyance, that error message would be way more useful if it included the filename that caused it to blow up. To debug this I straced the run with some flags to pare down the result to remove some syscall types so the output was less huge. This was your last changeset related to this bug: http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/changeset/2528 -ben From chris at qwirx.com Sat Jan 16 12:22:18 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:22:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1263594221.2233.199.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <1263594221.2233.199.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: Hi Martin, On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:02 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> >> 1. open source their code as well, under similar terms >> >> 2. credit us (Ben Summers and contributors) in the documentation >> >> 3. negotiate terms for a commercial license with the copyright holders >> >> The current license forces them to do either 2 or 3. If the license was >> changed to 2-clause BSD, they would not have to do any of the above. If it >> was changed to 3-clause BSD they would still have to do either 2 or 3. If >> a significant part of the code (the backup engine) was GPL, they would >> have to do either 1 and 2, or 3. > > I think there might be some confusion here. The 3 clause BSD licence > doesn't require attribution so doesn't achieve (2): My reading of it is different. Specifically the third clause states: * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Since they must reproduce the copyright notice, which says "Ben Summers and contributors", that counts as attributions as far as I'm concerned. Of course you're free to ask for more or less attribution than that :) >> My only reason for considering this change at all is Fedora's issue >> with the license. I would rather not have to waste cycles on this >> issue. I must say I'm skeptical about and unhappy with their conclusion >> that the advertising clause makes the software non-free and therefore >> it cannot be included in Fedora. We could still push back on it. > > Fedora's actually quite lenient here, spot is saying (in the bug) that > the current advertising clause is badly worded and a rewording of it to > match the normal 4 clause BSD licence would be sufficient. Who is to say it's badly worded except Ben? I assume that he changed it for a reason. I'm glad he's given us permission to change it to something more standard, and especially to change parts of the code to GPL. I have no issue with removing the advertising clause. I would like to change parts of the code to GPL, as discussed, if we can agree that it's a good thing without too much effort. Otherwise let's just remove the advertising clause and be done with it. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at functions-net.nl Sat Jan 16 13:36:13 2010 From: boxbackup at functions-net.nl (Mick Kappenburg) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:36:13 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <201001161436.31256.boxbackup@functions-net.nl> > I am not, however, willing to change the license to GPL because I > believe the 'Box libraries' are of general utility. Well, it might be, but is it already used somewhere else? If not, I don't think it is going to happen. If the libs are in a project of its own with proper docs it will have a chance to be picked up. At the present I doubt it will be reused. Even if they are proper libs chances are high they won't be reused, as this is often the case, unfortunately. I haven't contributed yet (just started to get acquainted with the code), but hope you will go for GPL only. Regards, Mick From chris at qwirx.com Thu Jan 21 22:18:43 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:18:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi all, This is your *last chance* to state your objection to the new license, see below for more details. On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Ben Summers wrote: > >> I am happy to change the code I wrote to the standard BSD license. >> >> The advertising clause is no longer fair, as Chris Wilson has taken >> over. I will leave it to Chris and the community to decide whether or >> not there should be an advertising clause, and if there is, what it >> should say. >> >> I am not, however, willing to change the license to GPL because I >> believe the 'Box libraries' are of general utility. I know this will >> complicate things, but as a compromise I will, at Chris and the >> community's request, relicense the Box Backup specific code I wrote as >> GPL if the general purpose libraries are left with the BSD license. >> >> I nominate Chris Wilson to adjudicate and make the final decision. :-) The proposal was: GPL for the backup parts of Box Backup: bin/bbackupctl bin/bbackupd bin/bbackupobjdump bin/bbackupquery bin/bbstoreaccounts bin/bbstored bin/s3simulator lib/backupclient lib/backupstore test/backupdiff test/backupstore test/backupstorefix test/backupstorepatch test/bbackupd contrib/bbadmin contrib/bbreporter contrib/cygwin contrib/debian contrib/mac_osx contrib/redhat contrib/rpm contrib/solaris contrib/suse contrib/windows distribution/boxbackup BSD 3-clause (no advertising clause) for everything else: lib/common lib/compress lib/crypto lib/httpserver lib/intercept lib/raidfile lib/server lib/win32 test/basicserver test/common test/compress test/crypto test/httpserver test/raidfile test/win32 infrastructure The advertising clause will *no longer apply* to future releases. The responses are in. I think we have three in favour of this proposal, two neutral and none against. We are therefore changing the licenses as stated above, effective from midnight on 23 Jan 2010. I will implement this in the distribution code as soon as possible, and the new license will apply to all future releases and release candidates, including 0.11rc6. If there are any objections, please make them known now, in the next 24 hours, otherwise this decision becomes final by default. This is your last chance to object :) Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From achim+box at qustodium.net Thu Jan 21 22:39:21 2010 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:39:21 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> Hello list: Chris is asking for objections, but I actually want to take a couple of seconds to 1) extend my manifold "Thank you" to everyone contributing to Box Backup, and 2) congratulate the stakeholders for a wise proposal (and hopefully soon: decision) with the move to as much GPL (v3?) as possible. Personally, I would have liked the whole project to come under GPL to make the licensing easier to explain/understand and to create an additional "incentive" (or obligation) to give back to the project. On a side note (which was part of the argument for the BSD license for the libraries): Is anybody aware of a proprietary software that uses Box Backup code? From market place [1] it seems more like everybody is charging for the hosting rather than for the software, and everybody of those providers would benefit from each others contribution via GPL, but not via BSD... Looking forward to 0.11, Achim [1] http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/wiki/Marketplace From stuart at bmsi.com Thu Jan 21 22:59:31 2010 From: stuart at bmsi.com (Stuart D. Gathman) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:59:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: I am not a copyright holder, just a lurker, but I'll throw in my summary understanding of the change. On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > I am happy to change the code I wrote to the standard BSD license. Documentation for distributions of the libraries must include the license (and thereby credit the authors). > GPL for the backup parts of Box Backup: Distribution of backup application and derivatives must include source (or negotiate commercial license). This seems a very reasonable and generous change. Box Backup will be a very good addition to Fedora and other free/libre distros. (And maybe even Redhat EL.) -- Stuart D. Gathman Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154 "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial. From rnhurt at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 02:17:29 2010 From: rnhurt at gmail.com (Richard Hurt) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:17:29 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <712ba87c1001211817x77f7384bgacbf55107c64c185@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > This is your *last chance* to state your objection to the new license, see > below for more details. > > ...snip... > The advertising clause will *no longer apply* to future releases. > > The responses are in. I think we have three in favour of this proposal, two > neutral and none against. > > We are therefore changing the licenses as stated above, effective from > midnight on 23 Jan 2010. I will implement this in the distribution code as > soon as possible, and the new license will apply to all future releases and > release candidates, including 0.11rc6. > > If there are any objections, please make them known now, in the next 24 > hours, otherwise this decision becomes final by default. This is your last > chance to object :) > > Cheers, Chris. > I don't contribute to the BB project but I do use it in my server appliance business and I would just like to thank the developers and everyone that has worked hard to bring this software to fruition. My only input to the re-licensing process would be to encourage the use of standard OSI licenses[1] and to not develop and/or use one-offs. As long as we stick to the known waters I think we will be much better off. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses -- Later... ? http://KangarooBox.com - We make IT simple! Richard ? http://MynaStuff.com - Keep track of your stuff. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maillist at diffingo.com Fri Jan 22 02:35:38 2010 From: maillist at diffingo.com (Stewart Adam) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:35:38 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B590EFA.6040008@diffingo.com> On 2010/01/21 5:59 PM, Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > This seems a very reasonable and generous change. Box Backup will be a very > good addition to Fedora and other free/libre distros. (And maybe even Redhat > EL.) I plan on requesting EL branches after it gets into Fedora :) Stewart From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 22 07:52:53 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:52:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <712ba87c1001211817x77f7384bgacbf55107c64c185@mail.gmail.com> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <712ba87c1001211817x77f7384bgacbf55107c64c185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Richard, On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Richard Hurt wrote: > I don't contribute to the BB project but I do use it in my server appliance > business and I would just like to thank the developers and everyone that has > worked hard to bring this software to fruition.? You are welcome, thank you for your contribution in using, testing and reporting bugs in Box Backup. > My only input to the re-licensing process would be to encourage the use > of standard OSI licenses[1] and to not develop and/or use one-offs.? As > long as we stick to the known waters I think we will be much better off. That is exactly why we are going through this very process. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 22 08:00:44 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:00:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> Message-ID: Hi Achim, On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Achim wrote: > Chris is asking for objections, but I actually want to take a couple of > seconds to 1) extend my manifold "Thank you" to everyone contributing to > Box Backup, and 2) congratulate the stakeholders for a wise proposal > (and hopefully soon: decision) with the move to as much GPL (v3?) as > possible. Regarding GPL version: Sorry for not thinking about this earlier. While I would consider GPLv3, I'd prefer not to make it incompatible with GPLv2 projects, including Boxi, so I'm going with GPLv2 for now. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From lists at ebourne.me.uk Fri Jan 22 08:12:08 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:42:08 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> Message-ID: <1264147928.2229.47.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:00 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Achim, > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Achim wrote: > > > Chris is asking for objections, but I actually want to take a couple of > > seconds to 1) extend my manifold "Thank you" to everyone contributing to > > Box Backup, and 2) congratulate the stakeholders for a wise proposal > > (and hopefully soon: decision) with the move to as much GPL (v3?) as > > possible. > > Regarding GPL version: Sorry for not thinking about this earlier. While I > would consider GPLv3, I'd prefer not to make it incompatible with GPLv2 > projects, including Boxi, so I'm going with GPLv2 for now. I would suggest the GPL v2 or later standard wording, rather than GPL v2 only. This would make later re-licensing to GPL v3 easier if the maintainers desired. It also gives wider compatibility if combining code with other open source projects. Cheers, Martin From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 22 08:16:27 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:16:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <1264147928.2229.47.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> <1264147928.2229.47.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: Hi Martin, On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martin Ebourne wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:00 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> >> Regarding GPL version: Sorry for not thinking about this earlier. While >> I would consider GPLv3, I'd prefer not to make it incompatible with >> GPLv2 projects, including Boxi, so I'm going with GPLv2 for now. > > I would suggest the GPL v2 or later standard wording, rather than GPL v2 > only. This would make later re-licensing to GPL v3 easier if the > maintainers desired. It also gives wider compatibility if combining code > with other open source projects. Sorry, yes, it was my intention to allow use under later versions. I thought that the option to use a later version was an integral part of the GPLv2 :) Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From lists at ebourne.me.uk Fri Jan 22 09:00:51 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:30:51 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <4B58D799.2020600@qustodium.net> <1264147928.2229.47.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <1264150851.2229.48.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martin Ebourne wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 09:00 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > >> Regarding GPL version: Sorry for not thinking about this earlier. While > >> I would consider GPLv3, I'd prefer not to make it incompatible with > >> GPLv2 projects, including Boxi, so I'm going with GPLv2 for now. > > > > I would suggest the GPL v2 or later standard wording, rather than GPL v2 > > only. This would make later re-licensing to GPL v3 easier if the > > maintainers desired. It also gives wider compatibility if combining code > > with other open source projects. > > Sorry, yes, it was my intention to allow use under later versions. I > thought that the option to use a later version was an integral part of the > GPLv2 :) Unless you're Linus Torvalds of course :) Cheers, Martin From siretart at tauware.de Fri Jan 22 13:56:47 2010 From: siretart at tauware.de (Reinhard Tartler) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:56:47 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: (Chris Wilson's message of "Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:18:43 +0100 (CET)") References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Do, Jan 21, 2010 at 23:18:43 (CET), Chris Wilson wrote: > The proposal was: > > GPL for the backup parts of Box Backup: > > bin/bbackupctl > bin/bbackupd > bin/bbackupobjdump > bin/bbackupquery > bin/bbstoreaccounts > bin/bbstored > bin/s3simulator > lib/backupclient > lib/backupstore > test/backupdiff > test/backupstore > test/backupstorefix > test/backupstorepatch > test/bbackupd > contrib/bbadmin > contrib/bbreporter > contrib/cygwin > contrib/debian > contrib/mac_osx > contrib/redhat > contrib/rpm > contrib/solaris > contrib/suse > contrib/windows > distribution/boxbackup > > BSD 3-clause (no advertising clause) for everything else: > > lib/common > lib/compress > lib/crypto > lib/httpserver > lib/intercept > lib/raidfile > lib/server > lib/win32 > test/basicserver > test/common > test/compress > test/crypto > test/httpserver > test/raidfile > test/win32 > infrastructure > > The advertising clause will *no longer apply* to future releases. This means that binary distributions (like binary packages in fedora, debian or ubuntu) of boxbackup will be under the terms of both the BSD and GPL license at the same time, is that correct? How will the boxbackup binary itself advertise its licensing? What copyright reproducing and/or license statements would those binary distribution packages need to accompany? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 22 14:39:39 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:39:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: Hi Reinhard, On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > This means that binary distributions (like binary packages in fedora, > debian or ubuntu) of boxbackup will be under the terms of both the BSD > and GPL license at the same time, is that correct? The terms of both licenses will apply together. It's a Both-And situation, not an Either-Or situation, with regard to the combined bundle that will be Box Backup. The same applies to source distributions as well, doesn't it? > How will the boxbackup binary itself advertise its licensing? What > copyright reproducing and/or license statements would those binary > distribution packages need to accompany? GPL2+BSD? Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From siretart at tauware.de Fri Jan 22 16:41:02 2010 From: siretart at tauware.de (Reinhard Tartler) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:02 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: (Chris Wilson's message of "Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:39:39 +0100 (CET)") References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <87pr52um75.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Fr, Jan 22, 2010 at 15:39:39 (CET), Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Reinhard, > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> This means that binary distributions (like binary packages in fedora, >> debian or ubuntu) of boxbackup will be under the terms of both the BSD >> and GPL license at the same time, is that correct? > > The terms of both licenses will apply together. It's a Both-And > situation, not an Either-Or situation, with regard to the combined > bundle that will be Box Backup. well, my copy of the BSD contains these terms: ,---- | Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without | modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions | are met: | 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright | notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. | 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright | notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the | documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. | 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors | may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software | without specific prior written permission. `---- I guess boxbackup would replace the University of California with something more apropriate. Moreover, as far as I understand you'd want to not require point 3 from the above. However the GPL on the other hand has this term in ?6: ,---- | 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the | Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the | original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to | these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further | restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. | You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to | this License. `---- Which can be (and AFAIUI is) be interpreted as 'no other restrictions or obligations than stated explicitly in the GPL'. I understand that your interpretation is clearly differently, but I want to point out that this might cause confusion for people reading and considering software licenses. I also understand that this kind of confusion was the actual reason to start this post. Therefore I fear that the current proposal does little to improve the sitation: clarify the licensing. > The same applies to source distributions as well, doesn't it? > >> How will the boxbackup binary itself advertise its licensing? What >> copyright reproducing and/or license statements would those binary >> distribution packages need to accompany? > > GPL2+BSD? Since I don't think that the binary would reproduce the full verbatim copies of both GPL2+BSD, I'm asking for the exact wording of what the binary is required to reproduce, because of the possible misinterpretation that might arise as explained above. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jan 22 16:49:10 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:49:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <87pr52um75.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87pr52um75.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: Hi Reinhard, On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > However the GPL on the other hand has this term in ?6: > > ,---- > | 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > | Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > | original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > | these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further > | restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. > | You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to > | this License. > `---- > > Which can be (and AFAIUI is) be interpreted as 'no other restrictions or > obligations than stated explicitly in the GPL'. That's a very good point, thanks for raising it. Ben, would you object to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD/GPL at the choice of the licensee? That way, we can distribute Box Backup as pure GPL, but anyone wanting to use the core libraries could choose to use them under the BSD license instead. Does anyone object to this proposal? Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From lists at ebourne.me.uk Fri Jan 22 22:04:20 2010 From: lists at ebourne.me.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:34:20 +1030 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: <9C16ED15-C383-4EB7-82A7-BB7D9E44EBEF@fluffy.co.uk> <87tyueutsw.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87pr52um75.fsf@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <1264197860.2229.69.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:49 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Ben, would you object to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD/GPL > at the choice of the licensee? That way, we can distribute Box Backup as > pure GPL, but anyone wanting to use the core libraries could choose to use > them under the BSD license instead. > > Does anyone object to this proposal? I think that's a much better idea. I think it achieves much the same benefits but is much clearer to understand. Depending on your point of view with the advertising clause you could even keep that in the BSD licence so closed source distribution of the libraries has to acknowledge the work and open source distribution under GPL has to release source code. This would also clearly solve the long outstanding GNU readline licence incompatibility problem when building the box binary. Cheers, Martin From ben at fluffy.co.uk Sat Jan 23 12:06:42 2010 From: ben at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:06:42 +0000 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing Message-ID: Chris Wilson wrote: > Ben, would you object to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD/ > GPL > at the choice of the licensee? That way, we can distribute Box > Backup as > pure GPL, but anyone wanting to use the core libraries could choose > to use > them under the BSD license instead. I have no objection to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD and GPL v2 (and future versions) on the condition that the project asks any contributors to the core libraries to dual-license their contributions. Someone asked if anything actually uses these libraries in non-Box Backup projects. Some of my stuff does (you may have noticed a few classes which aren't used by Box Backup), and think it's reasonable to ask that future versions continue to be available for such non-GPL use. Ben -- http://bens.me.uk From chris at qwirx.com Sat Jan 23 12:12:33 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:12:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ben, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Ben Summers wrote: > Chris Wilson wrote: >> Ben, would you object to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD/GPL >> at the choice of the licensee? That way, we can distribute Box Backup as >> pure GPL, but anyone wanting to use the core libraries could choose to use >> them under the BSD license instead. > > I have no objection to dual-licensing the core libraries under BSD and > GPL v2 (and future versions) on the condition that the project asks any > contributors to the core libraries to dual-license their contributions. That's absolutely fine by me. Although we never had a formal relicensing process (or a formal copyright assignment for that matter), I think it's safe to assume that if someone's contributions are merged into a file bearing a particular copyright and license, and they submitted the contributions with the intention that this merge should happen, then they have implicitly agreed to the copyright assignment and license. Does anyone disagree? I'm going to go ahead with the relicensing as discussed, assuming that the outcome of any discussions about copyright assignment and licensing of contributions is orthogonal to the actual licenses on the files. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From achim+box at qustodium.net Tue Jan 26 12:05:44 2010 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:05:44 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> Hello list: One thing just came to my mind about the relicensing under BSD and GPL: Back in June we had a (small) discussion about the possibility of linking to Microsofts's VSS headers. I quote verbatim from my message then, and wanted to ask if we could add that exception to the GPL version under which you will release 0.11, in order to have at least the legal aspects covered, not to talk about the missing implementation ;-) PS: Slightly OT but perhaps interesting for us users of a "cloud" software with encryption: "Encryption breakthrough promises privacy in the cloud" Quote: > As I mentioned in another posting back in March 2009 [1], the Bacula > project gets around the GPL "restriction" (actually: liberations) by adding > a special clause that allows linking their GPL code with proprietary > libraries. > > A similar topic came up recently on the Bacula list again [2], and it > appears that perhaps there will be some progress towards having Free, > reverse-engineered header files. On the MingW list there is yet another > discussion on how to go about such a reverse-engineering process, and I can > see that Chris is actively participating [3]. > > It would be great if all the pieces would fall into place at some point, > however I believe that a practical "in the meantime" approach would be a > licensing exception, which, as Chris confirmed, would actually not even be > required for Box Backup's BSD-style license. > > Best regards, Achim > > [1] > > [2] > > [3] > From chris at qwirx.com Sun Jan 31 21:41:26 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:41:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Box Backup licensing In-Reply-To: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> References: <8efeddcd1657fdd848a360b281783195@localhost> Message-ID: Hi Achim and all, On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Achim wrote: > One thing just came to my mind about the relicensing under BSD and GPL: > Back in June we had a (small) discussion about the possibility of > linking to Microsofts's VSS headers. I quote verbatim from my message > then, and wanted to ask if we could add that exception to the GPL > version under which you will release 0.11, in order to have at least the > legal aspects covered, not to talk about the missing implementation ;-) Thanks for reminding me about this. It's actually a significant problem for relicensing Box Backup under the GPL, because we cannot legally link with OpenSSL. I have created a new license that includes similar exemptions to the ones used by Bacula, although I have reworded them because in my view the Bacula versions allow a significant loophole in the GPL, by allowing third parties to create customised versions of OpenSSL including whatever code they want (e.g. a competing backup application), and linking the GPL code against those libraries without disclosing the source. As this is a significant license change, I would like to point out that although I have committed the changes, they do not apply to any release currently made, and can be reverted easily if anyone objects. The most significant consequence is that it is not legal to distribute code linked against the both GNU readline library and either OpenSSL or VSS, as we had hoped it would be. I have therefore included another clause that allows distribution of the code and compiled binaries under the pure GPL, however I think this will be of limited utility as it does not legally allow linking to OpenSSL. You may view the changes here: [http://www.boxbackup.org/trac/changeset/2600] Please let me know if you have any objection to this new license. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From chris at qwirx.com Sun Jan 31 21:45:24 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:45:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Hard Links & Ignoring directories In-Reply-To: <20100111042826.GA14646@ayup.limey.net> References: <20090622024304.GA18203@ayup.limey.net> <20100111042826.GA14646@ayup.limey.net> Message-ID: Hi Ben, On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Ben Bennett wrote: > Resurrecting this from the email vaults because the bug popped back up. > I am running 0.11rc5. > > I'm getting: >> sudo bbackupquery "compare -aq" quit > ... > WARNING: Exception thrown: CommonException(OSFileError) at BackupQueries.cpp(1592) > Exception: Common OSFileError (Error accessing a file. Check permissions.) (1/9) I just wanted to let you know that: * This appears to be a different bug, although related, because it applies at compare time and not at backup time. * I haven't forgotten about it, and I will work on it as soon as I have time. I don't expect it to be difficult to fix. Sorry for the long delay in responding. I am in Italy on contract at the moment, and for the next three months or so, and between that and my girlfriend I'm finding it a bit difficult to find enough time to work on Box Backup at the moment. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From chris at qwirx.com Sun Jan 31 22:55:30 2010 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:55:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Box Backup] Hard Links & Ignoring directories In-Reply-To: <20100111042826.GA14646@ayup.limey.net> References: <20090622024304.GA18203@ayup.limey.net> <20100111042826.GA14646@ayup.limey.net> Message-ID: Hi Ben, On Sun, 10 Jan 2010, Ben Bennett wrote: > Resurrecting this from the email vaults because the bug popped back up. > I am running 0.11rc5. > > I'm getting: >> sudo bbackupquery "compare -aq" quit >> ... >> WARNING: Exception thrown: CommonException(OSFileError) at >> BackupQueries.cpp(1592) Exception: Common OSFileError (Error accessing >> a file. Check permissions.) (1/9) > > As a reminder, the problem occurs when there is a .gvfs mounted. I've just checked in a fix that might help with this. Please could you try out the latest trunk? Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |