[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3

From: edgar . soldin
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:22:39 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9

>     relicensing duplicity to gpl3 does _not_ result in a heighten enforcement 
> to open closed software. gpl2 and gpl3 are comparable in this regard.
>     _only_ if you are distributing duplicity by using it in your distro, you 
> will have to supply the distro customers with the (modified) duplicity 
> sources (that's identical for gpl2/3).
> Yep, I understand that (or at least that's my understanding of it, since 
> IANAL I don't know that I've interpreted it correctly but that seems to be 
> common consensus, which is good enough for me).  I am making the same 
> arguments at work.  The issue I'm facing is that we have customers who do not 
> care about the details, they are comparing distributions and have a checklist 
> "contains GPLv3 software".  If there's a check in that box, that distro is 
> eliminated from consideration.

well, these customers should have their lawyers do their homework then. Also, 
duplicity is free software. Not only for modification but also for the use of 
that modification. What good is the right to modify if it won't run on the 
device thereafter?

> I have to say, this isn't most, but it is enough that there's many different 
> discussions happening regarding it.  I know that for some key pieces of 
> software we are looking at our options, for something like duplicity that is 
> not considered core functionality, I'll lose any argument in favour of 
> keeping it.  It sucks, because I like it and I think it's a valuable feature 
> for our distro, but that's where I am.

and the more software switches over, the more pressure is there to acknowledge 
the consequences of using free software.

> I'm not sure how duplicity is at risk from tivoization, but I guess I can 
> imagine a situation where some evil vendor uses duplicity to restrict access 
> to a user's data or something.

no, it means the tivoization of duplicity itself. meaning if a gpl3'ed 
duplicity is part of the distro, the customers have a right to it's source plus 
the theoretical possibility to run a modified version of it on the box the 
distro is sold with.
>  Personally I'm with you on this.  Professionally I can say with almost 
> complete certainty that I don't have the level of influence to be able to get 
> a GPLv3 version of duplicity included in our distro, though it was quite easy 
> to sell the value proposition of integrating the current version.  :-/

if we would switch it is a simple decision. are the terms of gpl3 acceptable 
gaining the functionality of duplicity. if they are not, look around for 
actually i don't know of anything comparable, but you might be lucky ;)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]