Ending my involvement with the Duplicati project

Hello and good bye.

A few explanations about this involvements with the project.
2 or 3 years ago (time flies…) I submitted a small PR for a problem disturbing one of my Duplication install.
I waited for it… waited for it…
After a few months I noticed that nothing was committed to the project. There was no involvement at all from the main developers - especially the main one, the ‘project owner’ on the forum or in helping on the issues. Basically all that rested was a bunch of users having trusted their data to the project and trying to get their data - and a lonesome helper on the forum without developer skills and trying to get some to commit patches, and finally people loudly asking if the project was dead.

I had finally enough and decided to try to do something about it. So with the intermediation of the above mentioned helper I asked for committer rights to try to commit some stuff to get the project to work. This was a bit audacious since the small patch I had sent was my first C# lines of code, and I had no Github manager experience. So with the addition of the Duplicati source code, I had a few things to learn.
My goals as stated to the project owner were to not break stuff. Also, not so quite clearly stated, I intended to use the committing rights to steer the project to a forkable state, as it was quite obvious that it was not - quite a lot of undocumented stuff, use of servers all controlled by the project owner, some parts of code that were extremely difficult to read and understand.
After a few releases, I began to get the hang of it and hope that this project to be turned to full open source one.
But this is not going to be. A few weeks ago, the project owner mailed me to ask for a license change, to MIT, because he wanted to begin a new business around Duplicati and GPL was not ‘business-friendly’. I replied that I did not want to help him for that.

I did not fully explain my motivations for that because I did not want to be unnecessary hurtful.

I don’t care too much about the license in fact. What I am not friendly to is the idea of changing the license in the first place. In my opinion, an open source project is not always a few developers churning code. Often the said developers are talking about ‘community’ and asking for help of all kinds - helping beginners on forums, promotion, … and money (donate to the project !). So the initial license is part of the package on which many people are basing their decision to help. Changing it by doing a round of the ‘main contributers’ feels like a breach of trust to me. I have eaten quite a lot of contempt on this project, it’s not a personal matter, but I can’t tolerate this behaviour.

Now this morning I got a private message on this forum from the project owner announcing me that the license change was a done deed, and I had to accept it as a ‘majority decision’.

Well, fine with me. So I am going to ape lawyery language here:

‘I hereby declare that I am giving my authorization unrestricted by any deed of man or deity for all eternity to change my existing (poor) contributions to the Duplicati project to the MIT license. Yadda, Yadda.’

I don’t know if ‘Yadda, yadda’ is necessary for this declaration to be lawyery and businessy enough, but it looks good to me :slight_smile:

So long and thanks (well, not so much) for all the fish.

In the unlikely event that someone would like to get a word, my own domain is k-logic.fr and it’s quite easy for anyone having 2 cents of technical nous to get my personal email address from it.


Sorry to see you go. Thank you for all your help getting PRs committed and assistance with getting new releases published. It was greatly appreciated!


Very sad to see you go :frowning_face:, thanks for all that you have done.


Thanks for your work and contributions.

Now that duplicati has chosen to follow the enshitification path, what are some good alternatives?

1 Like

Thanks for stepping in and stepping up in so many areas. There was a need, and you’ll be missed.

1 Like

Premature call IMO, but here is a comparison: Big Comparison - Borg vs Restic vs Arq 5 vs Duplicacy vs Duplicati

1 Like

(I am the poster of the comparison)

Shame to see OP leave.

I too have noticed that duplicati borders on unmaintained

I keep it running for sentimental reasons (daily backup count up to 700+!) but don’t really consider it suitable for relying on as a backup solution

Personally I use restic. It is actively developed with a new version released every few months (and each update is big! Changelog lists tens of big fixes each time)

The major major downer is that it is CLI driven with no web interface. I hand rolled a bunch of scripts to do things I like but definitely means a bit of a power user tool

Other solutions I do keep on running (except Borg - too bug ridden) for testing and comparison purposes and I do use as a restore tool here and there - - but they are my backup (haha!) solutions to Restic

1 Like

Please look at all of the work put into Canary done last December.
Canary are test releases. One bug was found, and a Canary respin planned.

There were some other safe updates planned, but other work delayed them.
This is kind of the normal Beta plan. Canary work gets cautious near a Beta.

Restic! (rclone & restic)

On Windows?

Yeh on windows. WSL is very robust these days and really allows the best of both the win/Unix worlds

1 Like

Thank you so much for all the fixes and support you’ve provided.

1 Like

You don’t need WSL for that, they provide Windows version directly.

1 Like

Very sad to see you go. We need all the help we can get!