bruc@stone.congenomics.com (Robert E. Bruccoleri) writes:
> However, the real issue with PostgreSQL is not the copyright, but
> rather the permissions granted to everyone. As long as all the
> contributors are happy with the permission notice, then all is OK.

I think that's an excellent point that bears underlining.  All the
original code bore a UC Berkeley copyright --- but that didn't make
anyone unhappy, or stop any of us from doing what we wanted to do
with the code, because Berkeley's license terms are loose enough
not to pose any problems.

The license terms are not going to change.  Someone suggested switching
to GPL or LGPL terms, but we cannot do that without (a) violating the
Berkeley terms, which we are still bound by, and (b) losing many
contributors who work in commercial settings and would not find a
GPL'd database usable for their purposes.  (Berkeley terms are not
a problem for someone who wants to use code as a component of a
larger proprietary system --- but GPL terms are.)

As long as those terms don't change, adding PostgreSQL Inc (or
PostgreSQL Nonprofit Copyright Holding Corporation, or anything else)
to the copyright notices doesn't really change anything, except for
adding one more line to the boilerplate notice that people aren't
supposed to strip out of their copies.  PostgreSQL Inc can't sell the
rights to Postgres, because it hasn't got any rights that anyone else
hasn't got.  *Anyone* could take the code and start developing it
independently, just as the current set of developers did with Berkeley's
code.  And if PostgreSQL Inc did something that any significant number
of developers were unhappy with, that's exactly what those developers
would do.

So, while I don't have anything against forming a nonprofit organization
to hold the copyright on behalf of the development team, I really doubt
that it makes any difference.  The thing to keep your eye on and guard
jealously is the license/terms-of-distribution.  If anyone proposes
mucking with those, THAT is the time to start hollering.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:52:16 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
At 12:52 AM 1/29/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

>As long as those terms don't change, adding PostgreSQL Inc (or
>PostgreSQL Nonprofit Copyright Holding Corporation, or anything else)
>to the copyright notices doesn't really change anything, except for
>adding one more line to the boilerplate notice that people aren't
>supposed to strip out of their copies. 

I think this is the concern (not mine, raised by others) - what
guarantee is there that PG, Inc couldn't change the terms if 
(say) a new disease cropped up that killed all believers in Open
Source? :)  (yes intentionally silly).

In reality, only CHANGES could fall under more restrictive licensing,
but these changes might become intertwined in a way that made the
original distribution terms moot.  

This could be really simple to fix in legal terms.  With a not
for profit, distribution and development of a free and unencumbered
system could probably be incorporated into the bylaws and this may
be why the Apache Foundation was formed.  It's harder with companies,
which by definition are formed to be profitable and indeed in the
eyes of the IRS are supposed to strive for that goal (though there
is no need to succeed).

So...maybe "Inc" isn't the right long-term shape of the entity?

Personally, I don't think anyone should be terribly concerned about
this.  But I can see how some, especially folks who aren't US
citizens and perhaps don't know much about the realities of all this
in US law, could become concerned.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:21:28 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
At 00:52 29/01/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>bruc@stone.congenomics.com (Robert E. Bruccoleri) writes:
>> However, the real issue with PostgreSQL is not the copyright, but
>> rather the permissions granted to everyone. As long as all the
>> contributors are happy with the permission notice, then all is OK.
>
>I think that's an excellent point that bears underlining.  All the
>original code bore a UC Berkeley copyright --- but that didn't make
>anyone unhappy, or stop any of us from doing what we wanted to do
>with the code, because Berkeley's license terms are loose enough
>not to pose any problems.
>
>The license terms are not going to change.  Someone suggested switching
>to GPL or LGPL terms, but we cannot do that without (a) violating the
>Berkeley terms, which we are still bound by, and (b) losing many
>contributors who work in commercial settings and would not find a
>GPL'd database usable for their purposes.  (Berkeley terms are not
>a problem for someone who wants to use code as a component of a
>larger proprietary system --- but GPL terms are.)

LGPL allows some commercial use, but I agree, they are both inappropriate
agreements, especially if you want to allow people to write a commercial DB
based on PostgreSQL, which is a very good thing to allow.

When you refer to the license terms, do you mean the 'COPYRIGHT' file in
the root directory, or is there something more?


>As long as those terms don't change, adding PostgreSQL Inc (or
>PostgreSQL Nonprofit Copyright Holding Corporation, or anything else)
>to the copyright notices doesn't really change anything, except for
>adding one more line to the boilerplate notice that people aren't
>supposed to strip out of their copies.  PostgreSQL Inc can't sell the
>rights to Postgres, because it hasn't got any rights that anyone else
>hasn't got.

Now I'm confused. I thought there was a notice stating that PostgreSQL, Inc
had copy right? If that is the case, then they *can* sell it, and the buyer
could revise the license terms. This is a sort of inverse-Unisys trick:

1. Start with a free open source product
2. Shift the copyright of new code to yourself. The old code remains as it
was.
3. Sponsor and encourage some very nice changes to optimizers, OO support
and RI (naturally shifting copyright of the new stuff your organization)
4. When it's all stable, get taken over by someone who enforces the
copyright on the recent changes, and prevents further distribution.
5. Open source PosgreSQL development falls back to 3 year old sources, with
possible further copyright arguments.

I agree that this is *very* unlikely, but if such a scenario can be
prevented by some simple changes (like a non-prfit organization that has a
clear charter), then it may be worth doing.


>  *Anyone* could take the code and start developing it
>independently, just as the current set of developers did with Berkeley's
>code.  And if PostgreSQL Inc did something that any significant number
>of developers were unhappy with, that's exactly what those developers
>would do.
>
>So, while I don't have anything against forming a nonprofit organization
>to hold the copyright on behalf of the development team, I really doubt
>that it makes any difference.  The thing to keep your eye on and guard
>jealously is the license/terms-of-distribution.  If anyone proposes
>mucking with those, THAT is the time to start hollering.

As I said above, I'd like to know where they are, if you mean something
more than the COPYRIGHT file. The big advantage of a separate entity is
that it has a clear charter and no conflict of interest. Disadvantage is
that, I presume, it costs $$$.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422            |                 _________  \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430            |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:24:21 +1100
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> I think this is the concern (not mine, raised by others) - what
> guarantee is there that PG, Inc couldn't change the terms if 
> (say) a new disease cropped up that killed all believers in Open
> Source? :)  (yes intentionally silly).

Well, the critical point here is that neither PG, Inc nor anyone
else can *retroactively* change the terms of distribution.  The
copies that are out there are out there, with the terms of
distribution stated right in them.  Anyone can pick one up and
start doing their own thing with the code.  Neither UC Berkeley nor
any PostgreSQL contributor would have a leg to stand on to stop them;
you think the courts will look kindly on "oh, we didn't mean what we
said in the terms of distribution"?

The worst-case possible scenario is that Marc goes around the bend
and, five minutes before the release of version 7.42, announces that
7.42 will be distributed under new terms that everyone else thinks are
too tight.  Everyone else just flips him the bird, goes back to 7.41
and continues on with life.  (Furthermore, if anyone felt like suing,
such a last-minute switcheroo would never hold up in court.  Anyone
who had contributed code to 7.42 under the reasonable expectation that
it would be licensed just like 7.41 would have plenty of grounds to
say "wait a minute, where do you think you're going with my code?")

Same scenario applies if Marc gets run over by a truck and the new
owners of PG Inc try to do something unreasonable.  The fact is that
as long as the terms of distribution stay the same, PG Inc doesn't
have any real ability to hurt anyone.

If anyone wants to look into Apache and see how it's set up, I've got no
problem with taking a look.  I think it's real easy to make a mountain
out of a molehill in this area, however.  Look at FSF --- they actually
require signed paperwork (hard copy, not email) from any potential
contributor before they will accept code contributions.  Do we want to
get that anal-retentive?  I hope not.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:10:22 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> When you refer to the license terms, do you mean the 'COPYRIGHT' file in
> the root directory, or is there something more?

Yeah.  I have seen more extensive statements of the standard UC Berkeley
license terms (didn't BSD come with a different statement?) but that's
the one we are working with.

> Now I'm confused. I thought there was a notice stating that PostgreSQL, Inc
> had copy right? If that is the case, then they *can* sell it, and the buyer
> could revise the license terms.

Not retroactively.  Someone could try to do *new* development under
more restrictive terms, or just plain do some traditional proprietary
development using Postgres as a base.  They've got just as much right
to use the code in that way as you or I do to use it as we want to.
But I doubt many of the current contributors would help.

> The big advantage of a separate entity is that it has a clear charter
> and no conflict of interest.

Only to the extent that the people sitting on its board of directors
have no conflict of interest --- otherwise they could easily vote to
make the separate entity do something unhappy-making.  AFAICS these
would be more or less the same people who control PostgreSQL Inc;
namely the core developers.  If you don't trust them when they're
wearing one hat, why trust them when wearing another?

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 02:30:05 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
At 02:10 AM 1/29/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

>If anyone wants to look into Apache and see how it's set up, I've got no
>problem with taking a look.  I think it's real easy to make a mountain
>out of a molehill in this area, however.  Look at FSF --- they actually
>require signed paperwork (hard copy, not email) from any potential
>contributor before they will accept code contributions.  Do we want to
>get that anal-retentive?  I hope not.

Yes, in spirit I'm certainly with you on this one.  I presume some
laywer started hacking code in his spare time then started hacking
the FSF as well :)



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:07:34 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote:

> At 12:52 AM 1/29/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >As long as those terms don't change, adding PostgreSQL Inc (or
> >PostgreSQL Nonprofit Copyright Holding Corporation, or anything else)
> >to the copyright notices doesn't really change anything, except for
> >adding one more line to the boilerplate notice that people aren't
> >supposed to strip out of their copies. 
> 
> I think this is the concern (not mine, raised by others) - what
> guarantee is there that PG, Inc couldn't change the terms if 
> (say) a new disease cropped up that killed all believers in Open
> Source? :)  (yes intentionally silly).

Simple answer: the developers all go off with source code at the time that
PostgreSQL, Inc changes those terms and continues off where they left off
... IMHO, that is the nice thing about Open Source ... look at the
FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD camps ... developers A became unhappy with politics
in camp A so formed camp B and went on their merry way ... all three are
equally successful...

The same thing applies to Linux ... how many different distributions and
philosophies are out there now?  

You are right, PostgreSQL, Inc could go out, change the license on the
code "from this day forth", but that doesn't stop developers to branch off
a new code base based upon the license of "the day before" and totally
leaving PostgreSQL, Inc in the dust ...

> This could be really simple to fix in legal terms.  With a not
> for profit, distribution and development of a free and unencumbered
> system could probably be incorporated into the bylaws and this may
> be why the Apache Foundation was formed.  It's harder with companies,
> which by definition are formed to be profitable and indeed in the
> eyes of the IRS are supposed to strive for that goal (though there
> is no need to succeed).

> So...maybe "Inc" isn't the right long-term shape of the entity?
> 
> Personally, I don't think anyone should be terribly concerned about
> this.  But I can see how some, especially folks who aren't US
> citizens and perhaps don't know much about the realities of all this
> in US law, could become concerned.

Ummm...PostgreSQL, Inc isn't a US company...*technically*, like OpenBSD,
PostgreSQL is a Canadian Open Source Project, as its development is based
in Canada ... which has this neat little advantage that OpenBSD has taken
advantage of, but we haven't yet: we can add stuff like SSL encryption
directly into the source code and distribute it legally...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:51:27 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The worst-case possible scenario is that Marc goes around the bend
> and, five minutes before the release of version 7.42, announces that
> 7.42 will be distributed under new terms that everyone else thinks are
> too tight.  Everyone else just flips him the bird, goes back to 7.41
> and continues on with life.  (Furthermore, if anyone felt like suing,
> such a last-minute switcheroo would never hold up in court.  Anyone
> who had contributed code to 7.42 under the reasonable expectation that
> it would be licensed just like 7.41 would have plenty of grounds to
> say "wait a minute, where do you think you're going with my code?")

Actually, given that scenario, it wouldn't even a matter of going back to
7.41 ... everything in CVS, so you'd go back to the source tree as of the
date before the license changed ...

IMHO, the worst thing *anyone* organization could do is change the license
in such a way as to alienate the only thing of value ... the developers
*shrug*


Sat, 29 Jan 2000 13:07:48 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
At 12:51 PM 1/29/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

>The same thing applies to Linux ... how many different distributions and
>philosophies are out there now?  

Either too many, or not enough, I can never decide :)

>Ummm...PostgreSQL, Inc isn't a US company...*technically*, like OpenBSD,
>PostgreSQL is a Canadian Open Source Project, as its development is based
>in Canada

I hadn't realized that (not that I've cared!).

> ... which has this neat little advantage that OpenBSD has taken
>advantage of, but we haven't yet: we can add stuff like SSL encryption
>directly into the source code and distribute it legally...

Sigh...it's always painful to have my country's stupidity flaunted
in public :)




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:11:33 -0800
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote:

> At 12:51 PM 1/29/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> >The same thing applies to Linux ... how many different distributions and
> >philosophies are out there now?  
> 
> Either too many, or not enough, I can never decide :)
> 
> >Ummm...PostgreSQL, Inc isn't a US company...*technically*, like OpenBSD,
> >PostgreSQL is a Canadian Open Source Project, as its development is based
> >in Canada
> 
> I hadn't realized that (not that I've cared!).
> 
> > ... which has this neat little advantage that OpenBSD has taken
> >advantage of, but we haven't yet: we can add stuff like SSL encryption
> >directly into the source code and distribute it legally...
> 
> Sigh...it's always painful to have my country's stupidity flaunted
> in public :)

When those laws were created, there was a reason for them ... in this day
and age, there isn't, but, unfortunately, I think its easier to put *in* a
law then it is to repeal it, no? :(  Give it time ... just thank god for
loopholes :)

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:40:48 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright 
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 07:07:34AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 02:10 AM 1/29/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >If anyone wants to look into Apache and see how it's set up, I've got no
> >problem with taking a look.  I think it's real easy to make a mountain
> >out of a molehill in this area, however.  Look at FSF --- they actually
> >require signed paperwork (hard copy, not email) from any potential
> >contributor before they will accept code contributions.  Do we want to
> >get that anal-retentive?  I hope not.
> 
> Yes, in spirit I'm certainly with you on this one.  I presume some
> laywer started hacking code in his spare time then started hacking
> the FSF as well :)

Nah, I think it's more like how the rules are always more strict for
first born children: parents don't want to make a mistake, and don't
know what might _be_ a mistake, so set early curfews, etc. Once some more
kids come along (read Free Software projects) they start to loosen up...

Ross
-- 
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> 
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005

Sat, 29 Jan 2000 18:21:55 -0600
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright