4 ms·

"It just so happens that I’ve been working on de-duplication for Synctus" OP should clarify that Synctus has no issue with this project, prove he has rights to

by gte910h 16y ago

"It just so happens that I’ve been working on de-duplication for Synctus" OP should clarify that Synctus has no issue with this project, prove he has rights to release, etc, and stick that in the license. This feels like a copyright morass (although probably isn't).

rlpb 16y ago
I'm sorry this isn't clear. I wrote Synctus, am owner/director of the company that owns it, and have released ddar under the GPL having authorised myself through my company to do this.
- gte910h 16y ago
  Right right, I actually expected that to be the case, but you won't necessarily always be the owner of Synctus, etc. You should probably do the short amount of paperwork required: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html "If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school. (Your immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a disclaimer.)" Stick everyone's mind at ease. Neat project (which is why I care enough to get the ducks in a row).
  - rlpb 16y ago
    A disclaimer doesn't quite make sense for me. Let me explain: I fully own True Blue Logic Ltd and am sole director. Both Synctus and ddar are projects owned by this company. Copyright on both Synctus and ddar are held by this company. Synctus is not open source. This ddar release is open source (GNU GPL 3) as of today. So my company retains copyright but licenses ddar to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL 3. Thus there is no disclaimer to sign, since my company still claims copyright. Of course, now that ddar is released under the GPL, it will be forever (in the same manner as any other open source project). None of this affects Synctus, which is not open source. If anyone contributes code to ddar, those contributions would not be permitted to be used in Synctus without a further licence from the contributor. I've considered this carefully and decided that this won't be a problem for me.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      >So my company retains copyright but licenses ddar to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL 3. Thus there is no disclaimer to sign, since my company still claims copyright. A disclaimer isn't needed now that it's clear in the COPYING file that TBL Ltd (the copyright holder) is the one publishing it. Thanks for clearing the air.
- carterschonwald 16y ago
  since you may have investigated this: how does this compare with eg: repackaging the tarsnap deduplication code sans the encryption work?
  - rlpb 16y ago
    Tarsnap is not open source, so I intentionally avoided looking at the code to avoid any doubt over provenance. I imagine it would be harder, since Tarsnap is backed by S3 and AIUI Colin's own transactional storage layer to make it work with S3.

by gte910h 16y ago

rlpb 16y ago

I'm sorry this isn't clear. I wrote Synctus, am owner/director of the company that owns it, and have released ddar under the GPL having authorised myself through my company to do this.

gte910h 16y ago
Right right, I actually expected that to be the case, but you won't necessarily always be the owner of Synctus, etc. You should probably do the short amount of paperwork required: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html "If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school. (Your immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a disclaimer.)" Stick everyone's mind at ease. Neat project (which is why I care enough to get the ducks in a row).
- rlpb 16y ago
  A disclaimer doesn't quite make sense for me. Let me explain: I fully own True Blue Logic Ltd and am sole director. Both Synctus and ddar are projects owned by this company. Copyright on both Synctus and ddar are held by this company. Synctus is not open source. This ddar release is open source (GNU GPL 3) as of today. So my company retains copyright but licenses ddar to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL 3. Thus there is no disclaimer to sign, since my company still claims copyright. Of course, now that ddar is released under the GPL, it will be forever (in the same manner as any other open source project). None of this affects Synctus, which is not open source. If anyone contributes code to ddar, those contributions would not be permitted to be used in Synctus without a further licence from the contributor. I've considered this carefully and decided that this won't be a problem for me.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    >So my company retains copyright but licenses ddar to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL 3. Thus there is no disclaimer to sign, since my company still claims copyright. A disclaimer isn't needed now that it's clear in the COPYING file that TBL Ltd (the copyright holder) is the one publishing it. Thanks for clearing the air.
carterschonwald 16y ago
since you may have investigated this: how does this compare with eg: repackaging the tarsnap deduplication code sans the encryption work?
- rlpb 16y ago
  Tarsnap is not open source, so I intentionally avoided looking at the code to avoid any doubt over provenance. I imagine it would be harder, since Tarsnap is backed by S3 and AIUI Colin's own transactional storage layer to make it work with S3.