[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3

From: Martin Pool
Subject: Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:07:25 +1000

On 16 April 2011 04:28,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 15.04.2011 04:22, Martin Pool wrote:
>> On 14 April 2011 19:07,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> also we have not a lot of options here, only gpl2 or gpl3. relicensing to 
>>> another license or even modifying either gpl would need all past 
>>> contributors to agree. nobody could gather all of these.
>> If you want to use only GPL3 going forward, of course you can.  I have
>> little if any code in duplicity itself so it's not up to me anyhow.  I
>> just thought I'd mention it since the topic came up.
> still i am interested in your opinion. given my line of argumentation above. 
> do you agree, or do you see arguments to stick with gpl2?

It depends what you want.  At the moment, I see duplicity is v2 or
later, and taking for granted you cannot gather agreements of past
contributors, the only options are to stay v2 or later, or to become
v3 or later.

If you are concerned that people might obtain a copy of (something
derived from) Duplicity on a product without being easily able to
install an upgrade onto that product, and you think covering only
consumer products is better than nothing, then GPLv3 is a good choice.

On the other hand, suppose you would like people to be able to install
duplicity (or derivatives) onto eg iOS or Android devices through the
standard channel, which requires code signing.  With GPLv2 they can do
this, and they can get the source, but they might need a special
mechanism like Android's "allow non-marketplace apps" checkbox to
actually install modified versions.  With GPLv3, some argue, these
applications can't be installed through the marketplace, and on iOS it
may be hard for the average user to install them at all.  I think
having libre software on mobile platforms is good; I think code
signing for the default installation channel makes sense for security;
the important thing is that people be able to get the code and make
modifications and share them.

If you find the consumer-products-only distinction arbitrary that
might incline you against the GPLv3.


reply via email to

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