> > > I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain
> > > program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright.  You might want to
> > > correct this for the next release.
> > > http://www.bbin.com/pd/
> > Ooh. I guess I'm not familiar with the fine points here. Our
> > Berkeley-style license allows use, modification, sale, gift, theft,
> > etc. of the software with only one provision: that the copyright
> > notice remain intact. Clearly, this copyright notice is designed to
> > protect UCB from rabid lawyers once the software is no longer under
> > UCB's control, and this copyright allows any and all of the above
> > uses, and any other use also.
> > So what about this would not be considered public domain software?
> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.

Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
we are getting gypped by the legaleze.

Thanks for the heads-up...

                        - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:52:10 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: Postgresql Docs....

On 16-Nov-99 Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> > > I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain
>> > > program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright.  You might want to
>> > > correct this for the next release.
>> > > http://www.bbin.com/pd/
>> > Ooh. I guess I'm not familiar with the fine points here. Our
>> > Berkeley-style license allows use, modification, sale, gift, theft,
>> > etc. of the software with only one provision: that the copyright
>> > notice remain intact. Clearly, this copyright notice is designed to
>> > protect UCB from rabid lawyers once the software is no longer under
>> > UCB's control, and this copyright allows any and all of the above
>> > uses, and any other use also.
>> > So what about this would not be considered public domain software?
>> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.
> 
> Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> we are getting gypped by the legaleze.

IIRC, All copyright notices must be kept intact.  Software in the public
domain carries no protection whatsoever.  PD software can be taken and 
renamed to whatever by the person that renamed it and claimed to be their 
own property.  This happened to the WinVN project at least once (it's a
PD Windows newsreader).  At least one commercial project came directly 
from the WinVN sources - which are in the public domain.

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
  # include <std/disclaimers.h>       Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================



Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:08:12 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
RE: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>> I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain
>>>>>> program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright.  You might want to
>>>>>> correct this for the next release.

>>>> So what about this would not be considered public domain software?

>> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.

> Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> we are getting gypped by the legaleze.

IANAL, but I've paid considerable attention to these issues over the
past ten years.  My understanding is that "public domain" means
specifically that there is *no* copyright or any other intellectual-
property restriction on the software.  In particular, anything that
has either a BSD- or GPL-style license is most certainly not public
domain.

I'd suggest replacing all uses of the phrase "public domain" with
"open source" or "freely available" or some other term that hasn't
got such a clearly-inapplicable legal meaning.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:00:55 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs.... 
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > So what about this would not be considered public domain software?
> > Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.
> 
> Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> we are getting gypped by the legaleze.

How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do
whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to
buzzword-compliant these days.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:07:45 +0100 (MET)
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > > > So what about this would not be considered public domain software?
> > > Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.
> >
> > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> > we are getting gypped by the legaleze.
> 
> How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do
> whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to
> buzzword-compliant these days.

How about simply "BSD licensed?"

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio

Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:07:21 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
hi...

> > > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> > > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> > > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> > > we are getting gypped by the legaleze.
> > 
> > How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do
> > whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to
> > buzzword-compliant these days.
> 
> How about simply "BSD licensed?"

traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising
clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find
that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing
anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its
TRULY free", there are string attatched...

anyways... as long as a lisence protects what needs to be protected, all is
good. instead of arguing silly semantics (BSD/XFree/Public
Domain/GPL/blahblahblah) we should be looking more importantly at which rights
we want to secure and which we don't really care about.

BSD/XFree style liscences are good when a permisiveness is desired (like apache
and how it help keep HTTP on track) and bad when you aren't trying to enforce
certain standards but endevouring to keep a software available to others...
fortunately,  postgres isn't a trivial piece of software, which serves as a
protection. but it isn't so complex that it couldn't be taken on by another
entity. in fact, a compay could easily come along and swoop up the core 4
programmers with terrific job offers and that would pretty much be that =) 
lets hope people's scruples and dedications are in the place We would like them
to be...

public domain would be horrid. BSD/XFree style is fine, though probably more
permissive than needed (and perhaps even desired). the GPL is
probably a little too demanding for this type of software though...

it would be interesting to see it settle somewhere in between. e.g. if you want
to extend it, GREAT! if you distribute it gratis, you have to make it available
to everyone...  perhaps require source code be available for the current
release (not distributed, but available)... and if someone wants to _sell_ it
as a closed package, fine! but require they give something back to the postgres
development team.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
Sys Admin

Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:10:12 -0700
"Aaron J. Seigo" <aaron@gtv.ca>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
One half-decent newspeak alternative I've seen to "free software" and "open
source" is "Wide-Open Source" (WOS).  It seems designed to imply that your licence
is "open source, and then some", such as BSD-style without the advertising clause
and meaningless reference to Berkeley.

"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote:

> > > How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do
> > > whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to
> > > buzzword-compliant these days.
> >
> > How about simply "BSD licensed?"
>
> traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising
> clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find
> that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing
> anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its
> TRULY free", there are string attatched...

Cheers,

Evan @ 4-am


Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:02:12 -0600
Evan Simpson <evan@4-am.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote:
> > How about simply "BSD licensed?"
> 
> traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising
> clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find
> that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing
> anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its
> TRULY free", there are string attatched...

There are always strings attached.  The BSD license has the fewest
strings short of fully public domain.

> Domain/GPL/blahblahblah) we should be looking more importantly at which rights
> we want to secure and which we don't really care about.

That has already been done -- PostgreSQL still has Berkeley code in it,
and therefore HAS TO BE BSD licensed -- if the license terms are to be
changed (which is not likely to happen), Berkeley code will have to be
eradicated -- which is also not likely to happen.

[snip]

The point is this: the license is not changing (unless ALL contributors
past and present agree to it).  I just stated the fact of what license
it is. 

There is really no use in discussing what license to put PostgreSQL
under, as it is already under one.  That means that there is absolutely
no obligation on anyone who uses the software to give back to the
community -- in fact, if they want to take PostgreSQL, rename it, and
sell it, they are free to do so -- and they don't have to give anything
back.  In fact, the original Postgres had this very thing happen -- the
commercial database Illustra was the result, and that got swallowed by
Informix.  PostgreSQL lives -- Illustra is dead.  Long live PostgreSQL!

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio

Wed, 17 Nov 1999 15:22:54 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....
At 12:22 PM -0800 11/17/99, Lamar Owen wrote:
>There is really no use in discussing what license to put PostgreSQL
>under, as it is already under one.  That means that there is absolutely
>no obligation on anyone who uses the software to give back to the
>community -- in fact, if they want to take PostgreSQL, rename it, and
>sell it, they are free to do so -- and they don't have to give anything
>back.  In fact, the original Postgres had this very thing happen -- the

Well there is *one* thing they have to give back:  credit.  They have to
reproduce the copyright notice.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu

Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:51:25 -0800
"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....