Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Mauro Condarelli 
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 correctly, why would
> anyone be against allowing it to be linked into backuppc?  That would
> be the equivalent, say, of gluing a proprietary database client into a
> perl module which is a better example of the need for dual-licensing.
> Or even if someone created a much better user interface and packaged
> it as a product - why would that be a problem as long as the original
> still existed?
This is not possible.
BackupPC is GPL2.
If You link whatever to it, also that part falls unto the GPL and You *must* 
release the sources.
This has happened before (example coming to mind is the "spontaneous" 
contribution of
objective-c frontend to gcc sources, but that's not the only example).
Same for for the "much better user interface": if it's linked in then it falls 
under the GPL umbrella.
Things would have been different if original License would have ben LGPL, but 
that's not the case.
I admit the concept of "linking" in a language like Perl is a bit vague, but I 
think there are precedents.
Writing a different, independent, UI using only the published interfaces (i.e.: 
updating directly
the various config files) is a completely different story... and a completely 
different Project,
with a (possibly) completely different License.



Scenario I wanted to prevent is:
- someone makes a large (or simply critical) addition to BackupPC
- it gets committed and becomes integral part of BackupPC.
- sometime in the future contributor (or his employer) decides BackupPC cannot 
use
   anymore its "Intellectual Property" (which may extend beyond specific 
coding).
- BackupPC might remain crippled for a long time until someone finds a way 
around
   the mess.

I do not know if this scenario is likely to happen or not, I would like to 
understand
if it is at all *possible* and, if it is, how to prevent it (better safe then 
sorry).

I do agree flat transfer of copyright (CLA) solves the problem, but opens other,
potentially worse, scenarios.
Question is: is there someone who have a positive answer?
Please note this is a question for a lawyer.
It's well known that "rule of thumb" and "law" do not mix (that's true in all 
Countries,
not only in the States, who have a record on litigation).
Otherwise I propose to ask FSF for advise.

Regards
Mauro

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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 change, there is nothing anyone else can do.
But I do not see any reason to change the license, so I'd suggest to
forget the whole license discussion for now.

A contributor agreement, roughly cut along the one of the Linux Kernel
would be the next item on my wish list.


In order to become a mature, well functioning open source project, there
are a lot of other requirements, as you well may know. Bit I'm to tired
right now to go into details, I might miss something crucial.


> 
> 
> All - Does anyone know what the situation is with this Zamanda site
> http://backuppc.com/ ?

I have no idea, why don't you contact them and ask? But be polite, they
actually may be the driving force behind the resurrection of the
BackupPC development, just using their private eMail instead of a
@zamanda one.

Another issue may be backupcentral.com. They feed our mailing list into
their forum (probably displaying adds and monetizing on that, but I
could not be bothered to have a closer look) and the quality of input
this mailing list gets from them "leaves something to be desired"
normally. I do not remember any constructive input from their site, but
I may be wrong, as usual. But this situation opens the question for me:
What shall we do with pilot fish?

With kind regards

Stefan Peter

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread David Cramblett 
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 
wrote:

> 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 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 seem to have missed something. What "evil company"
> scenario
> > exactly do you talk about?
> >
> >
> > We're talking about a scenario where an individual submits code to the
> > project while working for "abc company", who later says they own the
> > copyright of the code and not the individual.
>
> So what? In order to "capture" the project and make it their own, they
> would have to get the consent of all other copyright holders
> (contributors). Unless you actually introduce this CLA and the "enemy"
> company manages to get hold of it, you have nothing to fear.
>
> The worst that can happen is that the new copyright holder wants to
> retrieve his contribution. So you remove the individuals code and
> replace it with independent, fresh code from another contributor. But I
> have never heard of an event like this and I'm not sure if it actually
> is possible to retract a license. And whatever company actually would
> try to get off a stunt like this would probably be taken to the internet
> sponger so fast they would not survive it.
>
>
> With kind regards
>
> Stefan Peter
>
> --
> --
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)
>



-- 
David Cramblett
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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 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 seem to have missed something. What "evil company" scenario
> exactly do you talk about?
> 
> 
> We're talking about a scenario where an individual submits code to the
> project while working for "abc company", who later says they own the
> copyright of the code and not the individual.

So what? In order to "capture" the project and make it their own, they
would have to get the consent of all other copyright holders
(contributors). Unless you actually introduce this CLA and the "enemy"
company manages to get hold of it, you have nothing to fear.

The worst that can happen is that the new copyright holder wants to
retrieve his contribution. So you remove the individuals code and
replace it with independent, fresh code from another contributor. But I
have never heard of an event like this and I'm not sure if it actually
is possible to retract a license. And whatever company actually would
try to get off a stunt like this would probably be taken to the internet
sponger so fast they would not survive it.


With kind regards

Stefan Peter

-- 
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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
> proprietary code added to backuppc to access correctly, why would
> anyone be against allowing it to be linked into backuppc?

What would stop them to provide these bits to the main BackupPC source?
This exactly is the companies/entities like Intel, IBM, AMD, The
Raspberry Pie Foundation and so on contribute to the Linux kernel: They
make sure Linux runs on their hardware by providing the needed bits and
bytes in order to bring their hardware into the mainstream kernels. When
did you last bought a Linux machine where you had to get the kernel as a
binary from the manufacturer?


  That would
> be the equivalent, say, of gluing a proprietary database client into a
> perl module which is a better example of the need for dual-licensing.

So only the ones that pay for this solution get to use it? Translating
to BackupPC: Imagine that Microsoft decides to provide a BackupPC client
that relies on some obscure transfer protocol MS is unwilling to open
source. So if you pay $$$ per server/user/year, you get seamless
BackupPC integration for MS systems. Then, OracleOS releases a similar
solution, although the two of them are not compatible because the do not
have to release the sources and neither will be willing nor able to
integrate the others protocol. Then Ubuntu, RedHat, (... you name it)
all follow this path.

Where does this leave you as a burdened administrator who just wants to
make sure the company survives the next crypto locker surge? And would
you recommend BackupPC to a fellow sysadmin well knowing that you need a
separate instance for every client OS you need to backup?


> Or even if someone created a much better user interface and packaged
> it as a product - why would that be a problem as long as the original
> still existed?
> 

Why shouldn't they release it to the public so all BackupPC users
benefit? Who knows, the BackupPC developers may be kind (and fair)
enough to openly praise them or even put this someones logo in the open
sourced user interface?

And, by the way, providing a new BackupPC user interface already is
possible. You just have to write something from scratch that can drive
the BackupPC server component and you even can make it closed source.
Because the front end only has to use the back end API in order to
provide the functionality required. No license violation required (at
least not until the US courts finally decide if an API is copyrightable
(ann if yes, this would apply to the US only, one would hope)).


With kind regards

Stefan Peter

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Les Mikesell 
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: No, you can't, because we have added our secret sauce to Perl
> and because it is licensed under the Arthritic License, we do not have
> to reveal the secret! So you can only get it from us!!
> Customer: Ok, where do I have to sign?
>
> 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
proprietary code added to backuppc to access correctly, why would
anyone be against allowing it to be linked into backuppc?  That would
be the equivalent, say, of gluing a proprietary database client into a
perl module which is a better example of the need for dual-licensing.
Or even if someone created a much better user interface and packaged
it as a product - why would that be a problem as long as the original
still existed?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread David Cramblett 
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 something protecting the project from the unlikely "evil
> > company scenario".
>
> Sorry, but I seem to have missed something. What "evil company" scenario
> exactly do you talk about?
>

We're talking about a scenario where an individual submits code to the
project while working for "abc company", who later says they own the
copyright of the code and not the individual.

David
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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 wanted
> to give away.   Personally, I think perl got it right with the
> dual-license that keeps it from being either locked into GPL-only code
> or locked out.

But Perl is a language, not a program. In order to be able to penetrate
into commercial entities, Perl had to have a non GPL license because GPL
does not allow modifications without open sourcing them. This is frowned
upon by companies beacuase of this:

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: No, you can't, because we have added our secret sauce to Perl
and because it is licensed under the Arthritic License, we do not have
to reveal the secret! So you can only get it from us!!
Customer: Ok, where do I have to sign?

How does this relate to BackupPC?

Not at all, I think. Because we do not want commercial business to
resell "enriched" BackupPC applications. So we demand that whoever
enhances BackupPC does so by adhering to the GPL by opensourcing their
additions/modifications. Re-licensing or dual-licensing under one of the
permissive licenses would open the door to the scenario above. Whatever
Perl (or Apache or OpenOffice or ..) has done in regards of licensing
does not automatically server or apply to BackupPC.


With kind regards

Stefan Peter

-- 
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Les Mikesell 
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
dual-license that keeps it from being either locked into GPL-only code
or locked out.   That is, any use is good use.   I assume everyone
here is OK with using perl - and trusts that its license is such that
we can continue to expect it to be available and usable in the
future...   But it is almost certainly too late to change anything
with backuppc even if the copyright owner(s) wanted to.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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 sign-off) is maintained
> indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or
> the open source license(s) involved.|
> 
> 
> It's kind of splitting hairs to say they don't require CLA, "it's a
> Certificate of Origin". It's essentially accomplishing the same goal.

No, definitively not. With a CLA, I give up my copyright. I have no
rights on the code submitted anymore and the entity that I had to
transfer my copyrights to can do with my contribution as it pleases.
They can even go closed source.

The (d) point you cited above just informs me that anyone can look up my
contribution as it will be publicly available indefinitely.


> The developer is agreeing that the patch belongs to the project and may
> be redistributed indefinitely.

Where does it say that?

> I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other. If any evil person
> or company tries to convert a useful OSS project into a pay-for software
> (or do other disruptive things), the community is going to fork the
> project and move on, e.g. LibreOffice, MariaDB, etc.

There is no easy way to prohibit this. Look at The Gimp, for example:
There are dozens of outlets on the internet that _sell_ precompiled
versions, sometimes "enhanced" with add ware and sometimes even under
the "Photoshop" label.

As a side note, even the current infrastructure supplier of BackupPC,
sourceforge.net, is known to do such things. Just google "sourceforge
grabs gimp".

Now, the GPL does not prohibit to sell software. It demands that you
have to make the source code available and that you can not mix GPL with
non GPL software (oversimplified, I know). But you actually are allowed
to charge for compilation, media, documentation, support and so on.

How can an open source project defend against the misuse of their project?

Mostly by making sure the source code stays open source. Try to attract
as many contributors as possible so the number of copyright holders make
it improbable that the source is taken over.

In the case of BackupPC, the risk of misuse is small: The target
audience are system administrators who will not download BackupPC from
some shady operation for a handful of megabucks if they can install it
from their OS repository for free. So another target would be to closely
cooperate with OS package maintainers in order to make the inclusion of
BackupPC as hassle free for them as possible.

Most OS packagers carry patches for the packages the maintain. Some of
the patches are distribution specific, some are bug fixes, some are even
functional extensions. And all package maintainers would prefer if they
would not have to carry these patches because these may break and the
maintainer then has to redo them for every new release of the upstream
project. So, harvesting these patches and incorporate them into the main
BackupPC source makes sure we stay in the distribution.

Another thing most OS packagers do is accepting bug reports. We should
harvest these bug reports and fix the issues in our source code. The
more bug reports a maintainer can close with a "fixed upstream" notice,
the better the reputation of a project is and the larger the chances of
a project to stay in the distribution (or even get a special exposure in
the distribution) are.

With kind regards

Stefan Peter

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Stefan Peter 
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 seem to have missed something. What "evil company" scenario
exactly do you talk about?

In large opensource projects like the Linux kernel multiple contributors
provide patches/pull request that eventually get merged. Every
contributor retains the copyright to the code she or he has contributed.
Using git, a list of all contributors is relatively easy to compile when
signed-off-by tags are used.

If there would be a license change mandated, all contributors would have
to agree to this change. If they don't, the project still could change
the license, but the code from the contributors rejecting the change
would have to be removed and/or replaced with code from other
contributors who support the change.


> 
> David
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Kris Lou  > wrote:
> 
> 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"?

I'm not a lawyer but I seriously doubt that this is considered as
legally binding.

And I definitely would not want to participate in a project that
requires me to sign a CLA. I even would consider to refrain from _using_
BackupPC if this is implemented. Just because in this case, there would
be a single entity who could change the rules from one day to the other.
And I would not want to risk the ability to restore my own backups from
last year.

And no, I would never expect Craig to do something evil like that. But
this is because I trust him personally. I would not have the same trust
in whatever organization that would have to be created or mandated to
serve as the final copyright holder.


Just my 2 cents. And, as mentioned above, I'm not a lawyer.

Regards

Stefan Peter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style for details)

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Iain Hallam 
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
their agreement to change the licence or remove their code from the version
with the new licence.

- Iain.
On 19 May 2016 5:31 pm, "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 sign-off) is
> maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
> this project or the open source license(s) involved.
>
>
> It's kind of splitting hairs to say they don't require CLA, "it's a
> Certificate of Origin". It's essentially accomplishing the same goal. The
> developer is agreeing that the patch belongs to the project and may be
> redistributed indefinitely.
>
> I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other. If any evil person or
> company tries to convert a useful OSS project into a pay-for software (or
> do other disruptive things), the community is going to fork the project and
> move on, e.g. LibreOffice, MariaDB, etc.
>
> However, almost all major OSS projects have some type of language in an
> *Agreement*, no matter the name it's refereed to, that the submissions
> belong to the project with redistribution rights indefinitely. The linux
> kernel goes the furthest (which I would not recommend for this project) as
> to require an *assertion* with each patch submission. Any OSS license
> essentially provides similar requirements, yet these projects are still
> requiring this or a similar assertion.
>
> Again, I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Stefan Peter 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 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 details.
>>
>> Additionally, there are countries where you can not legally transfer
>> your copyright to someone else unless you have been hired to do the work
>> in question. This would mean that Backuppc would either have to hire the
>> contributors or reject their contributions in order to make sure the CLA
>> is effective.
>>
>> With kind regards
>>
>> Stefan Peter
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>> untouched!
>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>> ___
>> BackupPC-users mailing list
>> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Cramblett
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
Backu

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread David Cramblett 
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  wrote:

> 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 <
> da...@functionalchaos.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> project, on the wiki, or ?.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Iain Hallam  wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD#n409
>>>
>>> It affirms that the code can be contributed to an open-source project
>>> and that the sign-off will be public. Real names must be used with an
>>> email address.
>>>
>>> - Iain.
>>>
>>> On 19 May 2016 at 14:20, Rob Owens  wrote:
>>> > - 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 job), I
>>> should be able
>>> >>> to get a little of 5:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 5) Time
>>> >> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for
>>> contributions
>>> >> to BackupPC.
>>> >>
>>> >> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future,
>>> possibly after
>>> >> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches
>>> and
>>> >> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
>>> >> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
>>> >>
>>> >> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC
>>> proprietary (I
>>> >> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen
>>> again), this
>>> >> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
>>> >>
>>> >> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
>>> >> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to
>>> discern it.
>>> >> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we
>>> really don't
>>> > need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The
>>> angry employer
>>> > scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must
>>> sign/swear that
>>> > the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink,
>>> would the
>>> > issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of
>>> doubt it.
>>> > It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.
>>> >
>>> > The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced,
>>> in my
>>> > opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.
>>> >
>>> > -Rob
>>> >
>>> >
>>> --
>>> > Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>>> > bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of
>>> MDM
>>> > restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>>> > apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>>> untouched!
>>> > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>>> > ___
>>> > BackupPC-users mailing list
>>> > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> > List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>>> > Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>>> > Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> i...@nineworlds.net
>>> http://www.iainhallam.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>>> untouched!
>>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;13193

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Kris Lou 
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:

> 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
> project, on the wiki, or ?.
>
> David
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Iain Hallam  wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD#n409
>>
>> It affirms that the code can be contributed to an open-source project
>> and that the sign-off will be public. Real names must be used with an
>> email address.
>>
>> - Iain.
>>
>> On 19 May 2016 at 14:20, Rob Owens  wrote:
>> > - 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 job), I
>> should be able
>> >>> to get a little of 5:
>> >>>
>> >>> 5) Time
>> >> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for
>> contributions
>> >> to BackupPC.
>> >>
>> >> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly
>> after
>> >> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches
>> and
>> >> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
>> >> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
>> >>
>> >> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC
>> proprietary (I
>> >> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again),
>> this
>> >> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
>> >>
>> >> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
>> >> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to
>> discern it.
>> >> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
>> >>
>> >
>> > My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we
>> really don't
>> > need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The angry
>> employer
>> > scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must
>> sign/swear that
>> > the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink,
>> would the
>> > issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of
>> doubt it.
>> > It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.
>> >
>> > The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced, in
>> my
>> > opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.
>> >
>> > -Rob
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> > Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>> > bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of
>> MDM
>> > restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>> > apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>> untouched!
>> > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>> > ___
>> > BackupPC-users mailing list
>> > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>> > Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>> > Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> i...@nineworlds.net
>> http://www.iainhallam.com/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
>> untouched!
>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>> ___
>> BackupPC-users mailing list
>> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Cramblett
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling,

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread David Cramblett 
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
project, on the wiki, or ?.

David

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Iain Hallam  wrote:

> 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:
>
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD#n409
>
> It affirms that the code can be contributed to an open-source project
> and that the sign-off will be public. Real names must be used with an
> email address.
>
> - Iain.
>
> On 19 May 2016 at 14:20, Rob Owens  wrote:
> > - 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 job), I
> should be able
> >>> to get a little of 5:
> >>>
> >>> 5) Time
> >> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for
> contributions
> >> to BackupPC.
> >>
> >> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly
> after
> >> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches
> and
> >> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
> >> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
> >>
> >> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC
> proprietary (I
> >> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again),
> this
> >> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
> >>
> >> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
> >> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to
> discern it.
> >> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
> >>
> >
> > My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we really
> don't
> > need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The angry
> employer
> > scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must
> sign/swear that
> > the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink, would
> the
> > issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of
> doubt it.
> > It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.
> >
> > The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced, in
> my
> > opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> --
> > Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> > bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> > restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> > apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> > https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> > ___
> > BackupPC-users mailing list
> > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> > Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> > Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
>
>
> --
> i...@nineworlds.net
> http://www.iainhallam.com/
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>



-- 
David Cramblett
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@list

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread David Cramblett 
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 indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the open source license(s) involved.


It's kind of splitting hairs to say they don't require CLA, "it's a
Certificate of Origin". It's essentially accomplishing the same goal. The
developer is agreeing that the patch belongs to the project and may be
redistributed indefinitely.

I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other. If any evil person or
company tries to convert a useful OSS project into a pay-for software (or
do other disruptive things), the community is going to fork the project and
move on, e.g. LibreOffice, MariaDB, etc.

However, almost all major OSS projects have some type of language in an
*Agreement*, no matter the name it's refereed to, that the submissions
belong to the project with redistribution rights indefinitely. The linux
kernel goes the furthest (which I would not recommend for this project) as
to require an *assertion* with each patch submission. Any OSS license
essentially provides similar requirements, yet these projects are still
requiring this or a similar assertion.

Again, I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other.

David

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Stefan Peter 
wrote:

> 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 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 details.
>
> Additionally, there are countries where you can not legally transfer
> your copyright to someone else unless you have been hired to do the work
> in question. This would mean that Backuppc would either have to hire the
> contributors or reject their contributions in order to make sure the CLA
> is effective.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Stefan Peter
>
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data
> untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>



-- 
David Cramblett
--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Iain Hallam 
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:

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD#n409

It affirms that the code can be contributed to an open-source project
and that the sign-off will be public. Real names must be used with an
email address.

- Iain.

On 19 May 2016 at 14:20, Rob Owens  wrote:
> - 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 job), I should be 
>>> able
>>> to get a little of 5:
>>>
>>> 5) Time
>> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for 
>> contributions
>> to BackupPC.
>>
>> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly after
>> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches and
>> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
>> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
>>
>> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC proprietary (I
>> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again), this
>> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
>>
>> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
>> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to discern 
>> it.
>> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
>>
>
> My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we really don't
> need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The angry 
> employer
> scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must sign/swear 
> that
> the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink, would the
> issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of doubt 
> it.
> It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.
>
> The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced, in my
> opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/



-- 
i...@nineworlds.net
http://www.iainhallam.com/

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Rob Owens 
- 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 job), I should be 
>> able
>> to get a little of 5:
>>
>> 5) Time
> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for 
> contributions
> to BackupPC.
> 
> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly after
> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches and
> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
> 
> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC proprietary (I
> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again), this
> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
> 
> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to discern 
> it.
> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
> 

My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we really don't 
need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The angry employer
scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must sign/swear 
that
the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink, would the
issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.
It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.  

The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced, in my 
opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.  

-Rob

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread 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 job), I should 
> be able to get a little of 5:
>
> 5) Time
As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for 
contributions to BackupPC.

My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly after 
being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches and 
prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
This is the problem we should address (if it exists).

I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC proprietary (I 
know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again), this 
should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.

Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to discern it.
If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.

Regards
Mauro

Il 19/05/2016 09:04, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting ha scritto:
> 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 details.
>>
>> Additionally, there are countries where you can not legally transfer
>> your copyright to someone else unless you have been hired to do the work
>> in question. This would mean that Backuppc would either have to hire the
>> contributors or reject their contributions in order to make sure the CLA
>> is effective.
>
> I agree, thanks Stefan!
>
> I think this is what we should require.
>


--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting 
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

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Copyright protection

2016-05-19 Thread Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting 
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 details.
> 
> Additionally, there are countries where you can not legally transfer
> your copyright to someone else unless you have been hired to do the work
> in question. This would mean that Backuppc would either have to hire the
> contributors or reject their contributions in order to make sure the CLA
> is effective.


I agree, thanks Stefan!

I think this is what we should require.

-- 
Best regards,
Lars Tobias

--
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/