[Box Backup] Box Backup licensing

Reinhard Tartler 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?
>
> 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



More information about the Boxbackup mailing list