I just got a question originating from our lawyers at work, concerning
the usage of 'free software' in our product.

The product (currently) consists of a modified Redhat 7.1 distribution,
PostgreSQL 7.1.3 (in custom RPM packages) and some proprietary softwares.

I read the license, and saw this paragraph:

        use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
        documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without
        a written agreement is hereby granted

We're charging for the SYSTEM (ie, hardware and software combination)
which contains and have PostgreSQL as a fundamental part of the whole
system and function.

We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?


Ortega counter-intelligence pits security Treasury Serbian smuggle
Mossad [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] Delta Force
iodine South Africa Marxist Nazi tritium
[See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]

15 Feb 2002 13:27:37 +0100
Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com>
License question
* Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> wrote:

| We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
| setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?

Disclaimer : I'm not a lawyer. 

Yes, this is perfectly legal with the PostgreSQL license. You could even charge
for the source code, without having done any modifications. If you do 
modifications you can charge for the end product without releasing source code.
That is the big difference between BSD style licenses such as the PostgreSQL 
license and GPL licenses such as the one for Linux. In both cases you 
are allowed to charge for your product, but with the latter license you would
have to make the source code available for anybody you distribute your 
product to. This is not a requirement with BSD style licenses.

-- 
Gunnar Rï¿½nning - gunnar@polygnosis.com
Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/

15 Feb 2002 15:54:50 +0100
Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?q?R=F8nning?= <gunnar@polygnosis.com>
Re: License question
...
> I read the license, and saw this paragraph:
>         use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>         documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without
>         a written agreement is hereby granted
...
> We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
> setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?

Yes. The license is saying explicitly that there are no fees for you to
use PostgreSQL, not that you must allow others to use something
containing PostgreSQL without fees.

The license asks that you include the license *for PostgreSQL* in your
product, but does not require that the PostgreSQL license cover any
other part of your system.

hth

                   - Thomas

Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:08:30 -0800
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: License question
Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> writes:

> The product (currently) consists of a modified Redhat 7.1 distribution,
> PostgreSQL 7.1.3 (in custom RPM packages) and some proprietary softwares.
> 
> I read the license, and saw this paragraph:
> 
>         use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>         documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without
>         a written agreement is hereby granted

This just means you can redistribute PG without paying the copyright
holders or obtaining explicit permission.  You are free to charge for
your redistribution if you wish (the GPL also allows this as long as
source is included). 

> We're charging for the SYSTEM (ie, hardware and software combination)
> which contains and have PostgreSQL as a fundamental part of the whole
> system and function.
> 
> We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
> setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?

Should be (IANAL, of course).  As long as you supply sources for your
Red Hat distribution and derived works from it (in compliance with the
GPL) you should be in good shape from what I know.

-Doug
-- 
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
   --T. J. Jackson, 1863

15 Feb 2002 10:18:12 -0500
Doug McNaught <doug@wireboard.com>
Re: License question

go to town :)

On 15 Feb 2002, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:

> I just got a question originating from our lawyers at work, concerning
> the usage of 'free software' in our product.
>
> The product (currently) consists of a modified Redhat 7.1 distribution,
> PostgreSQL 7.1.3 (in custom RPM packages) and some proprietary softwares.
>
> I read the license, and saw this paragraph:
>
>         use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
>         documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without
>         a written agreement is hereby granted
>
> We're charging for the SYSTEM (ie, hardware and software combination)
> which contains and have PostgreSQL as a fundamental part of the whole
> system and function.
>
> We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
> setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?
>
>
> Ortega counter-intelligence pits security Treasury Serbian smuggle
> Mossad [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] Delta Force
> iodine South Africa Marxist Nazi tritium
> [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>


Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:18:22 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: License question
Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> writes:
> We're charging for the SYSTEM (ie, hardware and software combination)
> which contains and have PostgreSQL as a fundamental part of the whole
> system and function.
> We're not charging SPECIFICALLY for PostgreSQL, but for a complete, working
> setup... Is this in conformance with the PostgreSQL license...?

Certainly.  For that matter, you could charge just for Postgres, if you
could get anyone to pay ;-).  The license says you don't have to pay us
a fee; it doesn't say anything about what you charge for your own work.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:24:10 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: License question 