Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Sorry, this is starting to get weird. I, perhaps mistakenly, raised the question and I would like to bring it back to origins. Il 20/05/2016 00:19, Les Mikesell ha scritto: > Why not? If someone had a commercial device that needed a bit of > proprietary code added to backuppc to access

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Dear David Cramblett On 20.05.2016 01:28, David Cramblett wrote: > Stefan - Based on all this discussion, is your recommendation the GPL > lic alone is enough, and we don't need anything additional? The license is given, more or less. If Craig and the other contributors do not agree to a license

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Stefan - Based on all this discussion, is your recommendation the GPL lic alone is enough, and we don't need anything additional? All - Does anyone know what the situation is with this Zamanda site http://backuppc.com/ ? David On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Stefan Peter

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Dear David Cramblett On 19.05.2016 23:59, David Cramblett wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stefan Peter > wrote: > > On 19.05.2016 19:01, David Cramblett wrote: > > Yeah, or "CofO", or "Sign-Off", or whatever term folks

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Dear Les Mikesell, On 20.05.2016 00:19, Les Mikesell wrote: >> >> How does this relate to BackupPC? >> >> Not at all, I think. Because we do not want commercial business to >> resell "enriched" BackupPC applications. > > Why not? If someone had a commercial device that needed a bit of >

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Stefan Peter wrote: > > Salesman: Hey, this is our xyz product, it is so much better than the > competition and you can get a license for only !!! > Customer: But it is Perl, so I can download it for free from the internet! > Salesman:

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stefan Peter wrote: > On 19.05.2016 19:01, David Cramblett wrote: > > Yeah, or "CofO", or "Sign-Off", or whatever term folks feel the most > > comfortable with. It doesn't have to be "CLA", it could be whatever make > > since. Just

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Dear Les Mikesell On 19.05.2016 23:12, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Stefan Peter wrote: >> >> >> How can an open source project defend against the misuse of their project? > > First you would have to define misuse - of something the author

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Stefan Peter wrote: > > > How can an open source project defend against the misuse of their project? First you would have to define misuse - of something the author wanted to give away. Personally, I think perl got it right with the

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On 19.05.2016 18:28, David Cramblett wrote: > If you read this (from Linux kernel link provided): > > |(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are > public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal > information I submit with it, including my

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On 19.05.2016 19:01, David Cramblett wrote: > Yeah, or "CofO", or "Sign-Off", or whatever term folks feel the most > comfortable with. It doesn't have to be "CLA", it could be whatever make > since. Just something protecting the project from the unlikely "evil > company scenario". Sorry, but I

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Crucially, though, the copyright remains with the coder, not the Linux Foundation. It's an important distinction when it comes to someone trying to change the licence, because if a foundation owns it, they can license as they want, while if it's owned by all the contributors, you'd have to get

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Yeah, or "CofO", or "Sign-Off", or whatever term folks feel the most comfortable with. It doesn't have to be "CLA", it could be whatever make since. Just something protecting the project from the unlikely "evil company scenario". David On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kris Lou

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

How about making the above explanation in a "How to contribute to BackupPC development", and requiring a short note in the pull request? Something as simple as "CLA:agreed"? Kris Kris Lou k...@themusiclink.net On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:37 AM, David Cramblett wrote:

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Yes. I think there may be too much emphasis on the term CLA. We could refer to the language under whatever term makes the most since. It can be a simple as possible and you wouldn't necessarily have to require it with each patch submission. It could be in a Contributing document within the

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

If you read this (from Linux kernel link provided): (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

The contributor certificate of origin from the Linux process linked earlier in the thread seems sensible and a basic level for what would be needed. They require a shorthand at the end of every patch which signifies that the contributor is asserting the contents of the certificate:

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

- Original Message - > From: "Mauro Condarelli" > Hi, > please note a this spawned from something Richard Alloway wrote: >> If I can get approval to do any of this on work's dime (which I think I can >> do, >> since contributing to Open Source projects is part of my

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Hi, please note a this spawned from something Richard Alloway wrote: > If I can get approval to do any of this on work's dime (which I think I can > do, since contributing to Open Source projects is part of my job), I should > be able to get a little of 5: > > 5) Time As I read it this means

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On 19/05/16 08:41, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote: > The CLAs for GNU projects have the FSF as the rights owner. > Linux has The Linux Foundation. I guess this is wrong. Ref. Stefan's mail. -- Best regards, Lars Tobias

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

On 19/05/16 08:37, Stefan Peter wrote: > This is simply wrong: The Linux Kernel does _not_ require a CLA. But it > requires a Certificate of Origin, also known as Signed-off-by. See > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD > for

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

Dear David Cramblett, Am 18.05.2016 um 18:45 schrieb David Cramblett: > I think most GPL projects still use a CLA to help protect the project in > the case of future litigation. The Linux Kernel for example is GPL v2, > but still requires CLA language appended to each patch submission. This is

Re: [BackupPC-users] Use devel list for BackupPC4 discussion?

> -Original Message- > From: Mauro Condarelli [mailto:mc5...@mclink.it] > Sent: den 18 maj 2016 19:24 > To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Use devel list for BackupPC4 discussion? > > Hi Kenneth, > We started here partly by chance and partly because