
>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?

A problem I see here is that "contributes or submits" is not defined. I
presume that what is probably intended is something like "submits to the
CVS repository or the patches mailing list of the PostgreSQL project".
Otherwise the term has no meaning. However, this would require some
definition of "PostgreSQL project", and IMHO any such definition would be
a Bad Thing. I suggest it is better for PostgreSQL, the software, to stand
alone as the entity distributed. The fact that a "project" exists to
maintain and develop it should not figure in the licence. Otherwise, to
pick an extreme example, suppose Oracle makes all the core developers an
offer too good to refuse, and someone else is left to pick up the pieces
and fork the project to keep it open. What rights does this forked project
have in the scheme of things? What terms apply to someone who submits
patches to this new project?

For that matter, suppose someone forks the project for other reasons; the
current licence gives anyone the right to do this at any time. With this
new suggested clause, the right to fork becomes murky. Forking is a Bad
Thing in general, but having the right to fork a project is the only
guarantee that the software will always be open.

Now one thing that might be sensible is to adopt a policy of only
accepting patches or cvs checkins that are provided irrevocably under the
terms of the PostgreSQL licence. But that is a policy for the PostgreSQL
project to adopt, not a term of the licence for redistribution of the
PostgreSQL software.

Tim

--
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Allen          tim@proximity.com.au
Proximity Pty Ltd  http://www.proximity.com.au/
  http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/



Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:09:22 +1000 (EST)
Tim Allen <tim@proximity.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Tim Allen wrote:

> Now one thing that might be sensible is to adopt a policy of only
> accepting patches or cvs checkins that are provided irrevocably under the
> terms of the PostgreSQL licence. But that is a policy for the PostgreSQL
> project to adopt, not a term of the licence for redistribution of the
> PostgreSQL software.

That's exactly right.

Firstly I don't believe there is an issue here. There is an implied
licence for patches.

But if there is any doubt it is the project's responsibility to ensure
that code that is accepted is under the right licence. If that means
patches are submitted with the appropriate licence so be it.

If find it somewhat doubtful also that putting this clause into the
copyright would have the desired effect. The clause effectively says
"Whatever patches you make available - well we have a licence whether
you like it or not". I can't see a court enforcing this. Either the
licence is implied by merely submitting it to the existing project by
common law, or the writer explicitely grants the licence. Trying to grab
the licence from the other party just by name it and claim it, I can't
see it working.

Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:33:14 +1000
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
Re: Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?