Re: UMD license

I have no objection that matters -- I was just trying to provide some
background on the dual-licensing.

Dustin

2017-08-09 9:56 GMT-04:00 Chapman Flack <[email protected]>:

> Hi,
>
> For what it's worth, I got written approval yesterday for
> straight BSD language, based on the earlier message from
> Jean-Louis.
>
> Will that be ok, or is there further discussion needed yet?
>
> Thanks,
> -Chap
>
>
> On 08/08/2017 03:06 PM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > When I looked at the two options in [1], they seemed to be either
> > (a) a BSD-like license without assignment of copyright, or (b)
> > a GPLv2 license *with* a copyright assignment form and contributor's
> > agreement, and a shirt.
> >
> > So, at my workplace, there is some flexibility for me to contribute
> > to open source upstream projects without having to go through the
> > intellectual-property officers, under typical circumstances. A regular
> > BSD license would fall under "typical circumstances", but the UMD
> > license, as written, is unusual because it turns all the "copyright
> > holders" and "contributors" into UMD.
> >
> > As for GPLv2, there are probably decent chances I could get that
> > approved, but with the contributor agreement and assignment form
> > to be signed, there are additional layers of people in suits whom
> > I would have to track down, and present to, and await their verdict.
> >
> > I'd rather follow a path of less friction if there is one. (Honestly,
> > I think the guys in suits would prefer that too; I doubt they really
> > want to be brought in every time a staff admin wants to contribute
> > to a backup system, they want to be looking at the big ideas with
> > revenue potential.)
> >
> > Thanks for weighing in,
> > -Chap
> >
> >
> > On 08/08/17 09:20, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> >> Maybe I missed the beginning of this thread -- are you unable to
> contribute
> >> under GPLv2?
> >>
> >> Yes, the attribution to UM (which doesn't even really want it anymore..)
> >> was what drove us to re-license, and I chose GPLv2 in part since it did
> a
> >> good job of constraining Zmanda's behavior with respect to Amanda as a
> >> whole.  So now the options are bsaically:
> >>
> >>  1. contribute as yourself under GPL; or
> >>  2. contribute as UM (via the UM license) and have your contribution
> then
> >> incorporated into a GPL product and thus be covered by GPL
> >>
> >> so if we add a third option it will be very similar to the second,
> meaning
> >> you are still effectively contributing under GPLv2, just without
> >> disclaiming ownership.
> >>
> >> Dustin
> >>
> >> 2017-08-07 18:39 GMT-04:00 Chapman Flack <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jean-Louis,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks - I'll check with the higher-ups, but I think the straight
> >>> BSD license will be easy to get cleared.
> >>>
> >>> -Chap
> >>>
> >>> On 08/07/2017 10:21 AM, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
> >>>> Hi Chapman,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for the delay, been in vacation and busy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it correct for you if I add the attached 'COPYRIGHT.BSD' file and
> >>>> allow you to release under that license?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jean-Louis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19/06/17 10:20 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If a contribution is made under the UMD license, which is called
> >>>>> "BSD-style" in [1], does that mean the exact language in [2], or
> >>>>> with edits to show the copyright held by the contributor (as [1]
> >>>>> provides)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When I compare it to an unaltered 3-clause BSD license [3],
> >>>>> the UMD license seems to have taken out all references to
> >>>>> "copyright holders" and "contributors" and replaced them
> >>>>> with only "U.M." If new files get contributed with exactly that
> >>>>> wording at the top, it's not clear any interests of the contributor
> >>>>> are protected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see that there have been past contributions from my place of work
> >>>>> (by John R. Jackson) and they were made under UMD, and I tried
> looking
> >>>>> through the repo to find the exact header at the top of any file he
> >>>>> may have contributed, but all I could find was a file with
> >>>>> no header at the top, so not quite the conclusive example I
> >>>>> was looking for. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> -Chap
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]: http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Licensing_your_Contribution
> >>>>> <http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Licensing_your_Contribution>
> >>>>> [2]: https://github.com/zmanda/amanda/blob/tags/3_2_3/COPYRIGHT
> >>>>> <https://github.com/zmanda/amanda/blob/tags/3_2_3/COPYRIGHT>
> >>>>> [3]: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
> >>>>> <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause>
> >>>> This message is the property of CARBONITE, INC. and may contain
> >>>> confidential or privileged information.
> >>>> If this message has been delivered to you by mistake, then do not copy
> >>>> or deliver this message to anyone.  Instead, destroy it and notify me
> by
> >>>> reply e-mail
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>