On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:18 AM,
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 11.04.2011 19:30, Joe MacDonald wrote:
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but as a distro vendor (my day job, not at this email address) a move to GPLv3 would mean I wouldn't be doing any further upgrades in our package and eventually it would get removed. I've got absolutely no say in our policy on licenses but anything GPLv3 is specifically forbidden by our legal department (and explicitly stated as to be excluded by some of our customers).
could you find out the reasons for 'banning'. waht distro are you talking about?
There's actually a number of reasons but they all amount to something like "we are writing proprietary code and don't want to be forced to open-source any of it". Not that they're using anything inappropriately, but that they have, for example, in-house hardware and in-house drivers or software for it that they don't want to share. So they want to be certain that the operating system they are buying will not introduce any risk of them having to open their code. I don't think it's really appropriate for me to talk about my employer or our customers here, but we're an embedded linux distribution that you'd be able to find reasonably easy with Google. I'm doing my best to help us navigate GPLv3 issues right now (obviously, long term ignoring the issue won't work) but today the only option I have is to simply not include anything GPLv3.
> RMS' comments aside, is there particular reasons of interest to the duplicity developers to move to v3 from v2+? Just wondering.
the mentioned
convince at least me.
Okay, I wasn't aware that there were patent protection issues or a strong desire to be compatible with the apache license in duplicity. Seriously, if those are concerns, that's perfectly valid, I didn't mean to dismiss RMS' arguments, I was just interested in what issues for duplicity would be resolved by moving to GPLv3.
Thanks for the update.