[Box Backup] Development feedback & discussion for Box Backup 1.0?

[James O'Gorman]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:56:06PM +0100, Achim J. Latz wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 12:47, Charles Lecklider wrote:
>  >   + I want the VSS code to be BSD, not GPL.
> 
[...]
> Is there a specific reason you prefer BSD, even if the cost is having to 
> reimplement the VSS support classes? At the same time, this would of 
> course limit the usefulness of the GPL-"branch" of Box Backup, if you 
> cannot distribute it with the VSS component.

Personally I prefer BSDL too. Although I appreciate for the purposes of
this project my contributions in code have been very minor so I didn't
object too much to the GPL change.

> > I have a working MMC snap-in (not open source), but due to the license
> > change it's on hold. I either need to find the motivation to write some
> > IPC code to talk to bbackupquery, or lib/backupclient needs to be LGPL,
> > or some other license modification to allow linking.
> 
> I think I don't understand how the current licensing restricts you. Are 
> you trying to say that you would like to share the MMC 
> (Windows-specific, I presume) with the project if it could be 
> BSD-licensed? What about dual-licensing it, since you are the copyright 
> holder? Under the Box Backup project context, the MMC is GPL and can be 
> linked with all components. For your clients, since you are the 
> copyright holder, you can pick any license you like, using the 
> "BSD"-licensed version of Box Backup for linking.

The issue is that the MMC snap-in is closed source. This is incompatible
with GPL but fine for BSDL.

James