As a detail-oriented person, I have naturally dedicated myself to all the details of bup without attending to one rather important detail: the license. I release almost all my software under the GNU LGPLv2, which I think provides a nice balance between a) letting people build commercial products based on the original product, while b) making sure that if people make and distribute changes, they need to contribute the changes back.
If you're not familiar with the differences between the "normal" GPL and the LGPL, the main difference is in the level of infectiousness: the GPL infects *everything* linked with the GPLed program, while the LGPL only affects changes to the program itself, even if another bigger program is made that includes the original code. I don't really want to force the licensing of your program; I just want to protect mine.
Anyway, I think the LGPLv2 is suitable for bup as well, so that's how I'm licensing the code I've written. I just pushed a change to github that includes a LICENSE file and a SIGNED-OFF-BY file that indicates what a Signed-off-by: git header means if you include it in a patch.
Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record of your license offer.
Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Hope you're still enjoying bup!
> As a detail-oriented person, I have naturally dedicated myself to all > the details of bup without attending to one rather important detail: > the license. I release almost all my software under the GNU LGPLv2, > which I think provides a nice balance between a) letting people build > commercial products based on the original product, while b) making > sure that if people make and distribute changes, they need to > contribute the changes back.
> If you're not familiar with the differences between the "normal" GPL > and the LGPL, the main difference is in the level of infectiousness: > the GPL infects *everything* linked with the GPLed program, while the > LGPL only affects changes to the program itself, even if another > bigger program is made that includes the original code. I don't > really want to force the licensing of your program; I just want to > protect mine.
> Anyway, I think the LGPLv2 is suitable for bup as well, so that's how > I'm licensing the code I've written. I just pushed a change to github > that includes a LICENSE file and a SIGNED-OFF-BY file that indicates > what a Signed-off-by: git header means if you include it in a patch.
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
> Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
> Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Hope you're still enjoying bup!
Each line of the precious code I wrote is such a gift to humanity, that I don't know how I could bear to see it rot away in a private repository. As such, I freely consent to LGPLv2ing the mountainous heap of code I've contributed.
I'll make sure to add Signed-off-by tags in my github fork for your pulling pleasure in the future.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Avery Pennarun <apenw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all,
> As a detail-oriented person, I have naturally dedicated myself to all > the details of bup without attending to one rather important detail: > the license. I release almost all my software under the GNU LGPLv2, > which I think provides a nice balance between a) letting people build > commercial products based on the original product, while b) making > sure that if people make and distribute changes, they need to > contribute the changes back.
> If you're not familiar with the differences between the "normal" GPL > and the LGPL, the main difference is in the level of infectiousness: > the GPL infects *everything* linked with the GPLed program, while the > LGPL only affects changes to the program itself, even if another > bigger program is made that includes the original code. I don't > really want to force the licensing of your program; I just want to > protect mine.
> Anyway, I think the LGPLv2 is suitable for bup as well, so that's how > I'm licensing the code I've written. I just pushed a change to github > that includes a LICENSE file and a SIGNED-OFF-BY file that indicates > what a Signed-off-by: git header means if you include it in a patch.
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
> Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
> Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Hope you're still enjoying bup!
Avery Pennarun <apenw...@gmail.com> writes: > Anyway, I think the LGPLv2 is suitable for bup as well, so that's how > I'm licensing the code I've written. I just pushed a change to github > that includes a LICENSE file and a SIGNED-OFF-BY file that indicates > what a Signed-off-by: git header means if you include it in a patch.
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
> Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
No problem here. I'll add the header when I (actually) send the patches. (Apparently I couldn't type last night.)
-- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
> Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
I would be more than happy to release my contribution to bup under the LGPLv2.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> If you've contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line > of this email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether > or not you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed > under the LGPLv2.
I agree that my past contributions to bup can be licensed under the LGPLv2.
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Avery Pennarun <apenw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all,
> As a detail-oriented person, I have naturally dedicated myself to all > the details of bup without attending to one rather important detail: > the license. I release almost all my software under the GNU LGPLv2, > which I think provides a nice balance between a) letting people build > commercial products based on the original product, while b) making > sure that if people make and distribute changes, they need to > contribute the changes back.
> If you're not familiar with the differences between the "normal" GPL > and the LGPL, the main difference is in the level of infectiousness: > the GPL infects *everything* linked with the GPLed program, while the > LGPL only affects changes to the program itself, even if another > bigger program is made that includes the original code. I don't > really want to force the licensing of your program; I just want to > protect mine.
> Anyway, I think the LGPLv2 is suitable for bup as well, so that's how > I'm licensing the code I've written. I just pushed a change to github > that includes a LICENSE file and a SIGNED-OFF-BY file that indicates > what a Signed-off-by: git header means if you include it in a patch.
> Of course, this doesn't retroactively affect any contributions from > other people, which leaves us with a bit of a mess. If you've > contributed to bup in the past (as everyone on the To: line of this > email has), please reply to this message and indicate whether or not > you agree that your past contributions to bup can be licensed under > the LGPLv2. Please reply to the list so that there's a public record > of your license offer.
> Please let me know if you see any problem with this.
> Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Hope you're still enjoying bup!
