
Bruce wrote:

[snip]

> > Although I haven't been paying close attention to the Ghostscript
> > situation, I suspect that the real story is either that the readline
> > interface code that someone contributed to Ghostscript was
contributed
> > with GPL terms already attached to it, or that Aladdin is concerned
> 
> Oh, that is an interesting issue that I never considered.  Reminds us
we
> can't use GPL code.

That was why when I merged Adrian's and my JDBC drivers for inclusion, I
used Adrians as the core, and re-wrote the additions I made to mine to
it, as mine was GPL'ed, and his wasn't.

Just a thought: How does this affect anything placed in the contrib
directory? If someone writes a tool under the GPL, can it be included
under the src/contrib directory, or would we fall foul just because it's
included with our source?

I don't think we have a problem with the CD distribution, as they are
clearly separate, but contrib is not that clear cut.

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.


Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:12:23 +0100
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>
RE: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> writes:
> Just a thought: How does this affect anything placed in the contrib
> directory? If someone writes a tool under the GPL, can it be included
> under the src/contrib directory, or would we fall foul just because it's
> included with our source?

Good question.  The GPL contains a clause to the effect that "mere
aggregation" of a GPL'd piece of code in a source distribution with
unrelated pieces of code is OK, even if those other pieces of code
are not GPL'd.  But the contrib directory is not exactly unrelated
to the main Postgres distribution, so I'm not sure that we can point
to this clause to justify putting a GPL'd program in contrib.  It'd
be a gray area...

I'd be inclined to say "if you want to put your tool under GPL, fine,
but then distributing it is up to you".  We don't need to be taking
any legal risks on this point.  A safe policy is that everything
distributed by the Postgres group has to carry the same BSD license.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:34:52 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? 
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk> writes:
> > Just a thought: How does this affect anything placed in the contrib
> > directory? If someone writes a tool under the GPL, can it be included
> > under the src/contrib directory, or would we fall foul just because it's
> > included with our source?
> 
> Good question.  The GPL contains a clause to the effect that "mere
> aggregation" of a GPL'd piece of code in a source distribution with
> unrelated pieces of code is OK, even if those other pieces of code
> are not GPL'd.  But the contrib directory is not exactly unrelated
> to the main Postgres distribution, so I'm not sure that we can point
> to this clause to justify putting a GPL'd program in contrib.  It'd
> be a gray area...

Items in the contrib section aren't required for the use of PostgreSQL,
however PostgreSQL *is* required to use those items.  So shouldn't the
items in contrib have to change to a Berkeley style license?  :)

I mean it's only fair!

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
==========================================================================




Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? 
   Good question.  The GPL contains a clause to the effect that "mere
   aggregation" of a GPL'd piece of code in a source distribution with
   unrelated pieces of code is OK, even if those other pieces of code
   are not GPL'd.  But the contrib directory is not exactly unrelated
   to the main Postgres distribution, so I'm not sure that we can point
   to this clause to justify putting a GPL'd program in contrib.  It'd
   be a gray area...

The problem only comes if I, for example, want to distribute all of
postgresql (contrib included) in a non-source (i.e., proprietary) way.
That is fine if contrib includes no GPL code; if it does, I need to
distribute the code for that portion only.  Thus, if we want to
maintain as broad a potential as possible (including non-source
distributions) we need to encourage adoption of the BSD license for
all source.

To make it easier for those distributing postgresql to keep track of
this stuff, perhaps we need a gnu (or gpl) directory (like or under
contrib) in which would go GPL code.  Then it would be crystal clear
which portion of the code has which restrictions.  It would also be
clear that this is an aggregation.  This is the mechanism used by
NetBSD for their code tree, which does include some gnu software.

Still, encouraging non-GPL contrib stuff is a good thing in order to
maintain future options, because GPL contrib code _cannot_ be added to
the main tree without affecting the distribution of the entire thing.

Cheers,
Brook

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:37:49 -0600 (MDT)
Brook Milligan <brook@biology.nmsu.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
>    Good question.  The GPL contains a clause to the effect that "mere
>    aggregation" of a GPL'd piece of code in a source distribution with
>    unrelated pieces of code is OK, even if those other pieces of code
>    are not GPL'd.  But the contrib directory is not exactly unrelated
>    to the main Postgres distribution, so I'm not sure that we can point
>    to this clause to justify putting a GPL'd program in contrib.  It'd
>    be a gray area...
> 
> The problem only comes if I, for example, want to distribute all of
> postgresql (contrib included) in a non-source (i.e., proprietary) way.
> That is fine if contrib includes no GPL code; if it does, I need to
> distribute the code for that portion only.  Thus, if we want to
> maintain as broad a potential as possible (including non-source
> distributions) we need to encourage adoption of the BSD license for
> all source.

But Alladin Ghostscript is distributed in source form.  This GPL legal
stuff is a terrible hassle.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> That is fine if contrib includes no GPL code; if it does, I need to
>> distribute the code for that portion only.  Thus, if we want to
>> maintain as broad a potential as possible (including non-source
>> distributions) we need to encourage adoption of the BSD license for
>> all source.

> But Alladin Ghostscript is distributed in source form.

But not *only* in source form.  Aladdin make their living by selling
Ghostscript to printer manufacturers and so forth.  The printer makers
are not about to ship out printers with copies of source code, nor
even with notices explaining where to get the printer source code.
If they obtained Ghostscript under GPL then they'd have to make not
only the PS interpreter source available, but probably the entire
firmware for the printer (it's a derived work, no?) and they are
certainly not about to do that.  So they pay Aladdin for the rights
to use Ghostscript with a commercial license instead of GPL.

In the same way, if we distributed Postgres under GPL, it would not be
possible to sell proprietary systems that use Postgres as a component.
That is, in fact, exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent.  But it
doesn't strike me as something we want for Postgres.  We'd be cutting
off too much of the potential "market" of Postgres users.  (Not only
would we lose companies who had an immediate interest in selling
DBMS-based code, but also those who had any thought of possibly doing
so in the future; that could be a lot of people.)

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:57:24 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? 
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> That is fine if contrib includes no GPL code; if it does, I need to
> >> distribute the code for that portion only.  Thus, if we want to
> >> maintain as broad a potential as possible (including non-source
> >> distributions) we need to encourage adoption of the BSD license for
> >> all source.
> 
> > But Alladin Ghostscript is distributed in source form.
> 
> But not *only* in source form.  Aladdin make their living by selling
> Ghostscript to printer manufacturers and so forth.  The printer makers
> are not about to ship out printers with copies of source code, nor
> even with notices explaining where to get the printer source code.
> If they obtained Ghostscript under GPL then they'd have to make not
> only the PS interpreter source available, but probably the entire
> firmware for the printer (it's a derived work, no?) and they are
> certainly not about to do that.  So they pay Aladdin for the rights
> to use Ghostscript with a commercial license instead of GPL.

Oh, I didn't realize they had a binary-only distribution that was
_different_ from the source distribution.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Items in the contrib section aren't required for the use of PostgreSQL,
> however PostgreSQL *is* required to use those items.  So shouldn't the
> items in contrib have to change to a Berkeley style license?  :)
> 
> I mean it's only fair!

I know of at least two items in contrib that are required to run the
regression tests -- which, arguably, make PostgreSQL require those two
components (autoinc and refint).

And, the GPL is not fair.  It is highly restrictive to programmer
freedom in ways (and promotes code freedom in others -- for many things
it makes sense).  It's not called the 'GNU Public Virus' without merit. 
Lots of great software has been GPL'd -- and that's fine.  But
PostgreSQL is not -- and if PostgreSQL wants to remain BSD'd, then GPL'd
code is a real sticky mess that's best left alone.

I am not against either of these two licenses -- but the known issues of
dealing with them have to be understood, or problems may arise.

JMHO, of course.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:44:28 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
   Oh, I didn't realize they had a binary-only distribution that was
   _different_ from the source distribution.

DIFFERENT is not relevant.  I could today ship a binary verion of
postgresql in its present form as a proprietary product with no source
code.  No license problems arise from doing so.  Allowing GPL code
into the base system causes the problem. 

As just said, this is a good thing from the point of view of
encouraging participation and commercial success.  As long as the open
source version of postgresql remains a well-designed, solid product it
behooves any commercial distributor to aid in its maintenance rather
than take on the whole thing.  Ideally, they will contribute any fixes
they make so that all can benefit and perhaps more importantly so they
don't have to maintain the separate fixes any longer.

Cheers,
Brook

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:15:43 -0600 (MDT)
Brook Milligan <brook@biology.nmsu.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
>    Oh, I didn't realize they had a binary-only distribution that was
>    _different_ from the source distribution.
> 
> DIFFERENT is not relevant.  I could today ship a binary verion of
> postgresql in its present form as a proprietary product with no source
> code.  No license problems arise from doing so.  Allowing GPL code
> into the base system causes the problem. 

Does GPL require the source to be included, or just available for free?


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:41:04 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
   Does GPL require the source to be included, or just available for free?

Pretty sure just a pointer to location is good enough.  The catch is
that it has to be the exact version shipped and there is a time limit
(3 years?) for availability, so pointing to the gnu ftp site probably
doesn't work.

Cheers,
Brook

Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:58:50 -0600 (MDT)
Brook Milligan <brook@biology.nmsu.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Does GPL require the source to be included, or just available for free?

   Require sources to be available. It is enough to distribute a binary and
provide a pointer to sources. (There are some obscured words that the
pointer should be available for general public...)

Oleg.
---- 
    Oleg Broytmann     http://members.xoom.com/phd2/     phd2@earthling.net
           Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.


Thu, 21 Oct 1999 07:33:12 +0000 (GMT)
Oleg Broytmann <phd@phd.russ.ru>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
Lamar Owen wrote:
> 
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Items in the contrib section aren't required for the use of PostgreSQL,
> > however PostgreSQL *is* required to use those items.  So shouldn't the
> > items in contrib have to change to a Berkeley style license?  :)
> >
> > I mean it's only fair!
> 
> I know of at least two items in contrib that are required to run the
> regression tests -- which, arguably, make PostgreSQL require those two
> components (autoinc and refint).

Well, I made them... so you know what copyright is... -:)

Vadim

Fri, 22 Oct 1999 12:59:54 +0800
Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?