
Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
"slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
"ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...

Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens? 

The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:

"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."

Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?

The only change in this is the "Juristiction" para is removed ... I've
read this over several times now, and personal feel that all its doing is
extending the existing copyright to cover *ALL* developers, and not just
the "UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA" ones ...

If someone wants to point out something I have missed, I'm more then open
to re-reading it again ;)

I consider it an appendum to the existing copyright ... I don't know, does
that make it any less BSD/open?

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

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

PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres95)

This directory contains the _______ release of PostgreSQL, as well as
various post-release patches in the patches directory.  See INSTALL for
the installation notes and HISTORY for the changes.

We also have a WWW home page located at: http://www.postgreSQL.org

-------------------------

PostgreSQL is not public domain software.  It is copyrighted by the
University of California but may be used according to the following
licensing terms:

POSTGRES95 Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres, then
as Postgres95).

Copyright (c) 1994-8 Regents of the University of California

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and
this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING
LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS
ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS
TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.

-------------------------

Copyright ( 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by various contributors (as
identified in HISTORY) (collectively "Developers") which may be used
according to the following licensing terms:

Worldwide permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
agreement is hereby granted, on a non-exclusive basis, provided that the
above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following paragraphs appear
in all copies:

Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license.

IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY DEVELOPER BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT,
INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE
AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

THE DEVELOPERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NEED, OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS
NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT.  THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN
"AS IS" BASIS.  NO DEVELOPER HAS ANY OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE,
SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO OR FOR THE SOFTWARE OR
DOCUMENTATION.

BY USING THIS SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU SHOULD NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE.


Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:42:00 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
>
>"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
>the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
>non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
>modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
>
>Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
>Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
>changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
>else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?

I am (still) waiting to hear from my IP lawyer, but it is my understanding
that if Jan puts TOAST into CVS, then he has given an implied license for
use to use it in the open source project. As a result I doubt he could
actually force it's removal. What he could do is stop a third party from
using it in another product. This does not seem bad to me.

Unfortunately, with your revised clause, he no longer has that right.

Why not just leave the clause out? The more you diverge from BSD, the more
you make me want GPL. 


>The only change in this is the "Juristiction" para is removed ... I've
>read this over several times now, and personal feel that all its doing is
>extending the existing copyright to cover *ALL* developers, and not just
>the "UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA" ones ...

It's reducing the rights of developers.


>I consider it an appendum to the existing copyright ... I don't know, does
>that make it any less BSD/open?

I think it does; but I'd be open to any reason why I as a developer should
feel stronger as a result of your suggested clause.

Certainly if I were a private company who wanted to use PG, I would feel
more comfortable with this clause, but that is not how you are marketing it.




----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 01:13:05 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
> consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...
>
> Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens?
>
> The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
>
> "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
>
> Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?

    The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
    pull out things again. To stay with me as example, what would
    happen  if  I  take out PL/pgSQL, FOREIGN KEY (not all mine I
    know), the fixes to the rewriter and so on.  They  all  where
    contributed  under  the  old  license,  so  I  still hold the
    copyright on 'em - don't I.  Can a  new  license  change  the
    legal state of previous contributions? I don't think so. What
    do we have to do to reversely apply this  "irrevocable"  term
    to all so far done contributions?

    And  some  words  to  all the people who think GPL is better.
    IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing  everything
    that  uses  a  little  snippet  of  open  code to be open too
    doesn't have anything to do with free software.  There are  a
    couple  of  things Open Source can never offer. For example a
    native  DB-link  interface  between  a  Postgres  DB  and   a
    commercial  one  might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
    useful thing that must be a closed source  product,  so  what
    would it be good for to make it's development impossible?

    If  someone  needs a feature and is willing to pay alot money
    to get  it  right  now,  why  shouldn't  a  company  or  some
    individual  grab it and implement the feature. At some point,
    those will learn that it is a good idea to  contribute  these
    things  to  the  free  source too, because they'll get rid of
    most maintainence efford and gain that future development  on
    our  side  doesn't collide with what they're responsible for.
    It's so obvious to me  that  I  don't  need  a  license  that
    enforces it from the very first second.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:51:14 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:

> At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> >The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
> >
> >"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> >the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> >non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> >modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
> >
> >Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> >Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> >changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> >else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?
> 
> I am (still) waiting to hear from my IP lawyer, but it is my understanding
> that if Jan puts TOAST into CVS, then he has given an implied license for
> use to use it in the open source project. As a result I doubt he could
> actually force it's removal. What he could do is stop a third party from
> using it in another product. This does not seem bad to me.
> 
> Unfortunately, with your revised clause, he no longer has that right.
> 
> Why not just leave the clause out? The more you diverge from BSD, the more
> you make me want GPL. 
> 
> 
> >The only change in this is the "Juristiction" para is removed ... I've
> >read this over several times now, and personal feel that all its doing is
> >extending the existing copyright to cover *ALL* developers, and not just
> >the "UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA" ones ...
> 
> It's reducing the rights of developers.
> 
> 
> >I consider it an appendum to the existing copyright ... I don't know, does
> >that make it any less BSD/open?
> 
> I think it does; but I'd be open to any reason why I as a developer should
> feel stronger as a result of your suggested clause.
> 
> Certainly if I were a private company who wanted to use PG, I would feel
> more comfortable with this clause, but that is not how you are marketing it.

Wait ... you had me on the first section, but this second one does confuse
me ... "reducing the rights of developers" applies to the "Any person who
contributes..." clause, or the BOLD liability clauses?

I'm definitely not sold on the "Any person who contributes or submits any
modification..." clause, and *if* your IP lawyer comes back that your
understanding is accurate, I'm even less sold on it ... look forward to
hearing back on that ...

For me, the only thing that I really like is the three extra BOLD paras
that extend the protection from liability to encompass ALL DEVELOPERS
instead of just "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", which I don't believe any of
us falls under? :)




Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:04:55 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> > that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> > "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> > "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
> > consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...
> >
> > Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens?
> >
> > The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
> >
> > "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> > the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> > non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> > modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
> >
> > Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> > Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> > changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> > else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?
> 
>     The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
>     pull out things again. To stay with me as example, what would
>     happen  if  I  take out PL/pgSQL, FOREIGN KEY (not all mine I
>     know), the fixes to the rewriter and so on.  They  all  where
>     contributed  under  the  old  license,  so  I  still hold the
>     copyright on 'em - don't I.  Can a  new  license  change  the
>     legal state of previous contributions? I don't think so. What
>     do we have to do to reversely apply this  "irrevocable"  term
>     to all so far done contributions?
> 
>     And  some  words  to  all the people who think GPL is better.
>     IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing  everything
>     that  uses  a  little  snippet  of  open  code to be open too
>     doesn't have anything to do with free software.  There are  a
>     couple  of  things Open Source can never offer. For example a
>     native  DB-link  interface  between  a  Postgres  DB  and   a
>     commercial  one  might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
>     useful thing that must be a closed source  product,  so  what
>     would it be good for to make it's development impossible?
> 
>     If  someone  needs a feature and is willing to pay alot money
>     to get  it  right  now,  why  shouldn't  a  company  or  some
>     individual  grab it and implement the feature. At some point,
>     those will learn that it is a good idea to  contribute  these
>     things  to  the  free  source too, because they'll get rid of
>     most maintainence efford and gain that future development  on
>     our  side  doesn't collide with what they're responsible for.
>     It's so obvious to me  that  I  don't  need  a  license  that
>     enforces it from the very first second.

So you are in the "make no changes to existing license" camp?  Or just
against that one para above?

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


Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:54:15 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:

>     The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
>     pull out things again. 

I'm confused about this.  I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on code once
contributed?

If I distribute something under terms t(1), and then later distribute the
same thing under terms t(2), even if terms t(2) revoke terms t(1), I can't
go back and get the original distribution back.  

Now, in the case of something easily distributed (like code), if terms t(1)
allow free distribution, then all one needs is to argue that one is copying
that original distribution.  Am I missing something?

Because of the above, it seems to me that once some copyrighted work has
been opened, it can't be closed again.  Future developments by the original
copyright owner can, of course, include the original copyrightedwork under
different terms.  But even the original copyright owner can't go back and
change the license forsomething in the past, no?

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                                      Computer Services
<sullivana@bpl.on.ca>                        Burlington Public Library
+1 905 639 3611 x158                                   2331 New Street
                                   Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 1J4

Tue, 4 Jul 2000 14:13:59 -0400
Andrew Sullivan <sullivana@bpl.on.ca>
Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
> >     The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
> >     pull out things again. 
> 
> I'm confused about this.  I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
> intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on code once
> contributed?
> 
> If I distribute something under terms t(1), and then later distribute the
> same thing under terms t(2), even if terms t(2) revoke terms t(1), I can't
> go back and get the original distribution back.  
> 
> Now, in the case of something easily distributed (like code), if terms t(1)
> allow free distribution, then all one needs is to argue that one is copying
> that original distribution.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Because of the above, it seems to me that once some copyrighted work has
> been opened, it can't be closed again.  Future developments by the original
> copyright owner can, of course, include the original copyrightedwork under
> different terms.  But even the original copyright owner can't go back and
> change the license forsomething in the past, no?

To the best of *my* knowledge, a copyright cannot be retro-actively
imposed on software ... but, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so may be wrong
on this ...

I *believe* what Jan was getting at was that the copyright should be made
such that, as our example has gone so far, if his TOAST contribution falls
under said copyright, he can't, at some later date, decide to pull *his*
code out of the tree ... but, it only works "from that day forward", not
retro-actively on any previous code he's submitted ...



Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:24:21 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> So you are in the "make no changes to existing license" camp?  Or just
> against that one para above?
>

    My home is my castle - since I where in the army I don't like
    camps any more :-)

    All I want is to be safe against beeing sued for something  I
    did for free, available for nothing on an AS IS base.

    The  aspect  of "this license permits to make it proprietary"
    is IMHO weakened by itself. More and more companies  see  the
    benefits  of  going  open  source  (getting  high experienced
    programming  and  maintainence  for  free)  as  the  Mozilla,
    Interbase and other examples demonstrate.

    I   started  with  individual  software  development  on  the
    customer side.  The  next  step  was  standard  software,  to
    reduce development costs.  Now we are at the beginning of the
    next wave, open source. Again reducing development costs. The
    closed  shop companies will be the loosers in the long run, I
    believe. So my focus isn't really on keeping open  what  once
    became  open  -  that'll take care for itself because someone
    will be there taking the last open version and continue  from
    that.

    My  focus  is on beeing protected. And I'm not sure if beeing
    bound to any US States law is a good choice for that.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 01:09:15 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
The Hermit Hacker writes:

> Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens? 

Is it really necessary that the developers' DISCLAIMER is different in
wording than the UCB DISCLAIMER? Is there any deeper thought behind it? If
not, I humbly suggest using the same text.

> The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
> 
> "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."

There is certainly a point behind this. But this point essentially applies
to all open source projects, even GPL'ed ones. Is there an implicit grant
of license when you submit patches? If we feel that this issue needs to be
addressed then we should involve the open source community at large, not
move ahead by ourselves. Ask the Open Source Initiative, Software in the
Public Interest, the FSF, other large scale projects (FreeBSD), other
commercial entities, such as RedHat. You just can't sneak in this sort of
new language without anyone noticing.

There are also particular issues I have with the wording. What's a
"contribution"? One could interpret that any modification to PostgreSQL
that you make available to the public at large is a contribution. That
would make re-publishing PostgreSQL under a different license impossible.

It would also be quite tricky to enforce this change. Consider this: All
of the current code is under the current license, you can't change that.
Therefore, anyone who contributes changes to the *current* code is not
bound by this *new* license; only truly *new* code is bound by the new
license. But if it's truly new code then it does not constitute a
"modification or other change". So this license could never take effect
unless the all the authors of the exiting code explicitly agree that all
of their old code is now under the new license. That's not going to
happen.

Yes, I'm language lawyering. But the fact that such interpretations are
possible makes me uneasy.

> I consider it an appendum to the existing copyright ... I don't know, does
> that make it any less BSD/open?

s/copyright/license/

The _copyright_ is held by the entity who wrote the code, the _license_
are the conditions under which he makes them available to the rest of the
world. This also makes the current wording "Portions Copyright ...
PostgreSQL, Inc." kind of questionable.

And yes, IMHO any change to the BSD license makes it less BSD.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:11:53 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
At 01:09 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>    So my focus isn't really on keeping open  what  once
>    became  open  -  that'll take care for itself because someone
>    will be there taking the last open version and continue  from
>    that.

This is called 'faith', and is commendable, but I'm and old testament sort
of person - a few thunderbolts never go amiss!

I truly hope you are right, and that the result of Software Manufacturers
Vs. The Hackers is not the destruction of open source software through
extensive legal battles and intense self-interest. 

Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
but you want people to go there of their own free will?


>    My  focus  is on beeing protected. And I'm not sure if beeing
>    bound to any US States law is a good choice for that.

I think it's a bad idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:12:55 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more
  palatable?
Philip Warner wrote:
> 
> At 01:09 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> >    So my focus isn't really on keeping open  what  once
> >    became  open  -  that'll take care for itself because someone
> >    will be there taking the last open version and continue  from
> >    that.
> 
> This is called 'faith', and is commendable, but I'm and old testament sort
> of person - a few thunderbolts never go amiss!
> 
> I truly hope you are right, and that the result of Software Manufacturers
> Vs. The Hackers is not the destruction of open source software through
> extensive legal battles and intense self-interest.
> 
> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
> but you want people to go there of their own free will?

Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is
BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the
major developers:

A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
have been working on this *for years*

B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc"
out-there offers to host development on his machine and the
process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's
existence.

This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes
some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication,
distributive, and parallel query, good for them.

Mike Mascari

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:24:31 -0400
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
At 13:04 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> 
>> Certainly if I were a private company who wanted to use PG, I would feel
>> more comfortable with this clause, but that is not how you are marketing
it.
>
>Wait ... you had me on the first section, but this second one does confuse
>me ... "reducing the rights of developers" applies to the "Any person who
>contributes..." clause, or the BOLD liability clauses?

It was meant to apply to "Any person who...", but based on legal advice, I
was a little wrong. Assuming I could be reasonably expected to be aware of
the BSD nature of the project, and the terms of the BSD license, then by
making a submission, my submission comes under the BSD. 

I do still own copyright, but I can't prevent people using it in a
PG-derived project. But I *can* prevent them using it in software to run a
meat-grinder, assuming that software is not recognizably a PG derived
database (as perceived by a reasonable person). This could be relevant to
Jan who wrote  compression code, although I suspect he's philosophically
opposed to preventing his actual source code being used in, eg, "The New
Fangled Microsoft Disk Compressor, using advanced Compression Technology
(tm)".

The new clause removes this right.


>I'm definitely not sold on the "Any person who contributes or submits any
>modification..." clause, and *if* your IP lawyer comes back that your
>understanding is accurate, I'm even less sold on it ... look forward to
>hearing back on that ...

I still don't like it for the above reason.


>For me, the only thing that I really like is the three extra BOLD paras
>that extend the protection from liability to encompass ALL DEVELOPERS
>instead of just "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", which I don't believe any of
>us falls under? :)

Yes, but legal advice so far suggests it is useless in Australia (&
probably the UK), where it is not lawful to remove warranties. All you can
do here is reduce liability. More on this in a future email.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:40:43 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
At 00:24 5/07/00 -0400, Mike Mascari wrote:
>> 
>> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
>> but you want people to go there of their own free will?
>
>Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is BSD 
>*with restrictions*

I don't. The above was a question to Jan.

I have stated in the past that I would prefer PG to be GPL, but that is
based on my perception of PG as a 'strategic resource' for my company. The
GPL Vs. BSD discussion is a religious war that will only be resolved in
time. I do, honestly, hope Jan is right about the convergence of open
source and industry.

The context in which I said I would prefer PG to be GPL was when someone
suggested leaving the BSD licence for a more restrictive (to developers
rights over their submissions) version.


>If someone comes along and sweeps up the
>major developers:
>
>A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
>sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
>have been working on this *for years*

I totally agree. This can happen under GPL. If I were a company wanting to
develop PG, the source would be less of an issue than access to the core
developers who are the real resource. As Jan has said elsewhere, keeping
source secret is a waste of effort.


>B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc"
>out-there offers to host development on his machine and the
>process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's
>existence.

No problem here but wasted effort.


>This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
>one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
>still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
>commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes
>some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication,
>distributive, and parallel query, good for them.

This is the place where the religious war starts, so I'll confine my
comments to the issue at hand:

In summary of my position:

1. I am happy to continue with vanilla BSD + extra warranty & liability
disclaimers.

2. If the license goes anywhere else, I *believe* it probably should go GPL.

3. If people really want to write yeat another license (as opposed to
warranty), then they should do it properly - look at the objectives, look
at all existing public licenses, find the once closest to what the
developer & user base wants, modify it according to the specific needs.
Perhaps a modified LGPL might be better. Someone (Jan?) noted that adding a
driver is a problem under GPL - perhaps that should be addressed, rather
than just taking away more rights of developers as is proposed by Great
Bridge.




----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:00:08 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this
  morepalatable?
At 17:51 4/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
>The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>>
>    The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
>    pull out things again. 

My legal advice is that, assuming they knew it was a BSD project, they
can't take it out of PostgreSQL. But you could, for example, stop Microsoft
using your compression code in one of their products. The new license
removes this right from you.


>    I  still hold the
>    copyright on 'em - don't I. 

You will have the copyright, even under the new license. All you are doing
is waiving your rights to restrict it's use in any way whatsoever for any
purpose.


>    Can a  new  license  change  the
>    legal state of previous contributions?

No.


>    I don't think so. What
>    do we have to do to reversely apply this  "irrevocable"  term
>    to all so far done contributions?

Yes. Sticking with BSD looks good to me.


>    And  some  words  to  all the people who think GPL is better.
>    IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing  everything
>    that  uses  a  little  snippet  of  open  code to be open too
>    doesn't have anything to do with free software.  There are  a
>    couple  of  things Open Source can never offer. For example a
>    native  DB-link  interface  between  a  Postgres  DB  and   a
>    commercial  one  might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
>    useful thing that must be a closed source  product,  so  what
>    would it be good for to make it's development impossible?

I agree this is a problem with GPL; perhaps not with LGPL if the new code
could be written to require minimum changes to existing PG code, and if the
PG changes were not related to the NDA. I don't really want to start a GPL
vs. BSD argument here, I'm just asking if you had thought of that possibility.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:10:49 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more
  palatable?
Philip Warner wrote:

> My legal advice is that, assuming they knew it was a BSD project, they
> can't take it out of PostgreSQL. But you could, for example, stop Microsoft
> using your compression code in one of their products. The new license
> removes this right from you.

Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its
terms and conditions?

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:15:12 +1000
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
At 15:15 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its
>terms and conditions?
>

I am told that the most likely interpretation of this is that it is for use
in PostgreSQL or one of its descendants. The new clause changes that to
'any use whatsoever'.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:34:41 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this
  morepalatable?
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
> but you want people to go there of their own free will?

    Right.  Someone  who  doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in
    the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open  for
    any  non-commercial  use  should  choose  it.  IMHO  the  GPL
    includes "this is the one and only truth and  must  propagate
    up  into everything started on something that once went under
    this license". Who am I to restrict my code in that way?  Can
    I see the future?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:10:27 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more  palatable??
Mike Mascari wrote:
> This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes
> some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication,
> distributive, and parallel query, good for them.

    Let  them! It's good for the customer too, because he mustn't
    wait until we lazy dogs implement all that.

    If they are smart, they will contribute it to the open source
    tree sometimes after having their ROI. Otherwise they run the
    risk of getting stuck someday when their changes don't  apply
    any  more to our tree but they are still responsible for it's
    functionality.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:31:26 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Philip Warner wrote:
> I do still own copyright, but I can't prevent people using it in a
> PG-derived project. But I *can* prevent them using it in software to run a
> meat-grinder, assuming that software is not recognizably a PG derived
> database (as perceived by a reasonable person). This could be relevant to
> Jan who wrote  compression code, although I suspect he's philosophically
> opposed to preventing his actual source code being used in, eg, "The New
> Fangled Microsoft Disk Compressor, using advanced Compression Technology
> (tm)".

    Especially   the   compression  code  was  only  coding.  The
    underlying algorithm (slightly modified) was taken from a 10+
    years   old   usenet  article  and  is  the  idea  of  Adisak
    Pochanayon.

    If anyone on earth can make money out of it, I don't  have  a
    problem  with  that.  This  includes M$ and any other company
    with bad reputation.  But if there's a bug in my code causing
    severe damage, I don't want to get sued for it. That's all.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:42:39 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Thus spake Jan Wieck
>     Right.  Someone  who  doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in
>     the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open  for
>     any  non-commercial  use  should  choose  it.  IMHO  the  GPL

While I am a proponent of keeping the BSD style license, there is nothing
in the GPL about using code for commercial use one way or the other.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more  palatable??
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:

> At 00:24 5/07/00 -0400, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >> 
> >> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
> >> but you want people to go there of their own free will?
> >
> >Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is BSD 
> >*with restrictions*
> 
> I don't. The above was a question to Jan.
> 
> I have stated in the past that I would prefer PG to be GPL, but that is
> based on my perception of PG as a 'strategic resource' for my company. The
> GPL Vs. BSD discussion is a religious war that will only be resolved in
> time. I do, honestly, hope Jan is right about the convergence of open
> source and industry.

Philip ... I abhor GPL myself, which is why PostgreSQL will never fall
under it ... I think it is just this side of 'MicroSloth evil' in that it
creates way more restrictions on code that are necessary.  Its been around
so long that ppl have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that
"this is the only open source license" ...

You cannot close source open source ... unless ppl don't care.  If
someone were to come along and try, someone else comes along and forks the
code off at the point *just before* the license changed and continues
along their own thread.  Quite frankly, that person forking it off would
be me, since PostgreSQL was never intended to be closed source ...

... it doesn't matter if the code is under BSD or GPL, that fork can (and
will) happen ... with GPL, its near impossible to do ... with BSD, its
easier, but it buys little for the commercial enterprise doing so ...

I was going to say that what BSD buys someone over GPL is the ability to
create modules taht are binary only, but even GPL allows for that
... *shrug*


> >A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
> >sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
> >have been working on this *for years*
> 
> I totally agree. This can happen under GPL. If I were a company wanting to
> develop PG, the source would be less of an issue than access to the core
> developers who are the real resource. As Jan has said elsewhere, keeping
> source secret is a waste of effort.

Okay, so BSD vs GPL matters not here ...

> >B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc"
> >out-there offers to host development on his machine and the
> >process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's
> >existence.
> 
> No problem here but wasted effort.

And BSD vs GPL matters not here ...

> In summary of my position:
> 
> 1. I am happy to continue with vanilla BSD + extra warranty & liability
> disclaimers.

This is my feeling too ... I won't agree to changing the license over to a
"under juristiction of ...", nor will I agreee with the "slam this in
front of ppls faces and force them to read it ...".  

Personally, from all the 'legal' issues that FreeBSD has gone through over
the years, especially recently with the BSDi/FreeBSD merger and the whole
cryptology merger, I would think they would have been the first to
adopt/change their BSD license to something else, and I've never even seen
discussions on it ...

Putting the license up as a README on the ftp site, and maybe including it
as part of the download page ... no probs, not obnoxious ... hell, how
many ppl even read the license on sites that require a 'I agree'?  


Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:11:43 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this  morepalatable?
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> Personally, from all the 'legal' issues that FreeBSD has gone through over
> the years, especially recently with the BSDi/FreeBSD merger and the whole
> cryptology merger, I would think they would have been the first to
> adopt/change their BSD license to something else, and I've never even seen
> discussions on it ...

The only thing that comes close are the periodic discussions (ignored by
FBSD developers) about the removal of the 'offensive' mascot.  ;-)

Top Ten Gratuitous Discussions:

1.  FreeBSD v. Linux
2.  GPL v. BSD licence
3.  Removal of 'Chuckie' (Berkeley Daemon) from BSD 
    in favour of something less 'Satanic' or 'Demonic'
4.  (Official) renaming of 'Chuckie' so as not offend McKusick
    over the popular (mis)perception that the Berkeley Daemon 
    is (nick)named 'Chuckie'
5.  MySQL v. Postgres
6.  RedHat v. Debian v. SuSe
7.  Why was Slackware not involved in the above discussion
8.  Perl v. Python
9.  Coke v. Pepsi

lastly:

10. Altering the PG licence...I agree with *my perception* of Scrappy's
    position:  If FBSD get nervous and changes their licence, Pg should
    follow suit.  Otherwise it seems counterproductive.

Anyway, thanks for the great code.  I promise not to abuse it.
I promise not to sue anyone if I am too damn stupid to use it properly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
               SVCMC - Center for Behavioral Health                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Good                          tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
IS Coordinator / DBA                 Phone: 718-354-5528 
                                     Fax:   718-354-5056  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by:  PostgreSQL     s l a c k w a r e          FreeBSD:
               RDBMS       |---------- linux      The Power To Serve
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:00:55 -0400 (EDT)
Thomas Good <tomg@admin.nrnet.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this  more palatable?
Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:

> This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> commercial spawns which may leverage the code.

GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
the source along.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

05 Jul 2000 10:30:42 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
>
> > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
>
> GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> the source along.

    So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
    feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?  Only
    need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying (under NDA so he
    cannot publish it) and grab the money?

    That's currently possible with our license,  and  if  someone
    would  pay  $30,000  for  something I need a month of unpayed
    vacation to implement, why not?   Maybe  I  can  sell  it  to
    others, that have the same urgent need for this feature, too.
    Making another $xK out of it.

    No question, the  result  will  finally  get  contributed  so
    everyone  benefits  from  it.  The reason why someone is even
    willing to pay that amount is  just  to  get  me  out  of  my
    dayjob,  focussing  on  his  problem  NOW,  so it's done in a
    month.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:22:45 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:

> Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> >
> > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> >
> > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > the source along.
> 
>     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
>     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?

You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
sell it, and develop it by demand.

>     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying

Yes.

>     (under NDA so he cannot publish it) and grab the money?

An NDA can't be done, but you certainly can grab the money. If he
wanted you to add a feature, he could pay you for it.

>     That's currently possible with our license,

With GPL as well - you just can't deny the customer to distribute the
source if he wants to.
> 
>     No question, the  result  will  finally  get  contributed  so
>     everyone  benefits  from  it.  The reason why someone is even
>     willing to pay that amount is  just  to  get  me  out  of  my
>     dayjob,  focussing  on  his  problem  NOW,  so it's done in a
>     month.

That would certainly be possible. 
-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

05 Jul 2000 14:33:08 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
>
> > Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> > > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > >
> > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > the source along.
> >
> >     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
> >     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
>
> You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> sell it, and develop it by demand.
>
> >     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying
>
> Yes.

    Now  I  don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
    be  happy  with  a  patched  8.2.3  binary  as  long  as  I'm
    responsible  to  patch  future  versions  until I release the
    sources. Is that OK?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:04:45 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Mike Mascari wrote:
> 
> Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is
> BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the
> major developers:
> 
> A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
> sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
> have been working on this *for years*
> 
> B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc"
> out-there offers to host development on his machine and the
> process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's
> existence.
> 
> This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes
> some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication,
> distributive, and parallel query, good for them.

Is perhaps GPL more restrictive for *developers*?  And BSD more
restrictive for *consumers*?

As a consumer I prefer the GPL.  But Mike's point is well taken.  I
agree that the GPL is rather idealistic.  It makes it very difficult,
almost impossible, for someone to make money doing software development.

Is there a middle ground?  Somewhere where perhaps I can be assured that
*someday* in the not-so-distant future I, as a consumer, will have
access to source code?  Is there any such thing as a license with
built-in time limits?  Reasonably short time limits, as opposed to those
provided by the U.S. patent office?

Or is there a way to write an open-source license that allows developers
to make money?  I know, I know, there are too many licenses already. 
But if talented hard working people can't make a living, there's a
problem.  This will probably sound very stupid, but would it be possible
to write a license that said something to the effect of "if you are a
big corporate commercial interest worth more than $X, you must donate $Y
to postgresql.org."?

I'm not trying to rankle the developers who have benefited me so much by
promoting the GPL.  I'm just trying to protect myself as a consumer from
being left in the cold when the product I've spent so much time learning
and implementing suddenly goes proprietary.

Sorry to be cynical, but as a consumer, I can't help seeing BSD licenses
as good old bait and switch.  And this discussion doesn't reassure me
otherwise.

Sure, the code can fork.  SunOS, AIX, HPUX are good examples.  Examples
of the kind of code forking and corporatism I thought, I hoped, the
world was moving away from.

________________________
Ron Peterson
rpeterson@yellowbank.com

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:32:30 -0400
Ron Peterson <rpeterson@yellowbank.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Ron, probably the best example to reassure you here is Illustra/Informix,
which is based on the old Berkeley Postgres code.  A group of people at
Berkeley "forked" the Postgres code into the closed Illustra system, but it
survived as Postgres95, then later PostgreSQL when Marc and Bruce got
started.

As a number of people have said, if someone (like Great Bridge or anyone
else) ever took the then-current PostgreSQL code proprietary, it would still
remain as an open source project - and believe me, there are plenty of
people who would rather work on it as an open source project than a
proprietary death-spiral.

We think the proprietary software development model for large scale projects
(operating systems, databases, wide-ranging applications) is stupid and
dead.  We don't think open source is going away - in fact, we think it's the
way most software is going to be developed in the future.  There will
certainly be companies that try and fork off open source projects and make a
quick buck; they will fail.

As I understand your concern, you don't want to make a learning investment
in something you think is open source, only to have it go closed?  I think I
can safely say that PostgreSQL as an open source project will never go away
- the momentum is too strong, the product is too good, the developers are
too committed, for that to happen.

Best,
Ned



Ron Peterson wrote:

> I'm not trying to rankle the developers who have benefited me so much by
> promoting the GPL.  I'm just trying to protect myself as a consumer from
> being left in the cold when the product I've spent so much time learning
> and implementing suddenly goes proprietary.
>
> Sorry to be cynical, but as a consumer, I can't help seeing BSD licenses
> as good old bait and switch.  And this discussion doesn't reassure me
> otherwise.
>
> Sure, the code can fork.  SunOS, AIX, HPUX are good examples.  Examples
> of the kind of code forking and corporatism I thought, I hoped, the
> world was moving away from.
>
> ________________________
> Ron Peterson
> rpeterson@yellowbank.com


Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:06:08 -0400
Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:

> Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >
> > > Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > >
> > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > the source along.
> > >
> > >     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
> > >     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> >
> > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> >
> > >     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying
> >
> > Yes.
> 
>     Now  I  don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
>     be  happy  with  a  patched  8.2.3  binary  as  long  as  I'm
>     responsible  to  patch  future  versions  until I release the
>     sources. Is that OK?

You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it. 


-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

05 Jul 2000 18:49:37 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
>
> > Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > > JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > >
> > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > > the source along.
> > > >
> > > >     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
> > > >     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> > >
> > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> > >
> > > >     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> >     Now  I  don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
> >     be  happy  with  a  patched  8.2.3  binary  as  long  as  I'm
> >     responsible  to  patch  future  versions  until I release the
> >     sources. Is that OK?
>
> You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
> gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it.

    Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:50:38 +0200 (MEST)
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:

> Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote:
> > JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >
> > > Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > > > JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d wrote:
> > > > > > Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at
> > > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD
> > > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting
> > > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send
> > > > > > the source along.
> > > > >
> > > > >     So  if  someone  offers  $$$  for  implementation of Postgres
> > > > >     feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source?
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can
> > > > sell it, and develop it by demand.
> > > >
> > > > >     Only  need  to  ship  the  code  to the one paying
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > >     Now  I  don't want to ship the source code. My customer would
> > >     be  happy  with  a  patched  8.2.3  binary  as  long  as  I'm
> > >     responsible  to  patch  future  versions  until I release the
> > >     sources. Is that OK?
> >
> > You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you
> > gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it.
> 
>     Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for?

By doing everything he wants (and perfect) so he doesn't have a need
for it?  

Basically, GPL is intended to protect the end user and guaranteeing
him the source if he wants it - and that he can do what he wants to
with it, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so.


-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

05 Jul 2000 19:28:04 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
On 5 Jul 2000, Trond Eivind[iso-8859-1]  Glomsr�d wrote:
> Basically, GPL is intended to protect the end user and guaranteeing
> him the source if he wants it - and that he can do what he wants to
> with it, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so.

Which has the potential to really screw over developers who want to devote
themselves to for pay, (in this case) PostgreSQL hacking.

The threat of major pieces of code diverging is enough to assure that most
"closed source" enhancements will eventually be donated once the R&D
effort has been paid off.

We see these sort of contributions all the time in the FreeBSD project.

I don't think that the GPL or a GPL like license has anything to offer the
PostgreSQL project.  Extending the liability clause seems like a smart
move, as FreeBSD has done (most new stuff is commited under a '2 clause'
BSD derived license.)

-- 
| Matthew N. Dodd  | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD  |
| winter@jurai.net |       2 x '84 Volvo 245DL        | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent  | ISO8802.5 4ever |


Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
"Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>
Re: Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?