[Box Backup] Box Backup licensing
siretart at tauware.de
Fri Jan 22 16:41:02 GMT 2010
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?
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.
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
More information about the Boxbackup