Обсуждение: Re: [ADMIN] Misplaced modifier in Postgresql license

Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> The result of this ambiguity is that the
> latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql

We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.

Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
redistributors to charge a fee.  We are not going to open the Pandora's
box of "clarifying" the wording, however.  If you will not redistribute
Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> > The result of this ambiguity is that the
> > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
>
> We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
> We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
>
> Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
> redistributors to charge a fee.  We are not going to open the Pandora's
> box of "clarifying" the wording, however.  If you will not redistribute
> Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.

Agreed.

If you have changed original BSD license on the code you got from
Berkeley that had this wording, seems you could just change the wording
of the PostgreSQL code too.  Seems to be the same issue.

I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like.  :-)

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> > The result of this ambiguity is that the
> > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql

> We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
> We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.

but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)

> Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
> redistributors to charge a fee.  We are not going to open the Pandora's
> box of "clarifying" the wording, however.  If you will not redistribute
> Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.

i find this somewhat hostile response troubling.

it's common for geeks on the net to play at being lawyers, and it
is also common to discover later that the law doesn't work the way
the geeks want it to.

in the case of PostgreSQL's removal from the OpenBSD CDs, it
was done as part of an ongoing license audit -- and it is important
to note that it wasn't an uninformed decision. Theo actually consulted
with IP lawyers, and so there is some actual, direct legal advice
to the effect that the misplaced "without fee" clause is a potential
problem.

so in this case, Theo and the OpenBSD team aren't "playing
lawyer". they went to the trouble to actually talk to one.

if you go to the trouble to talk to the IP lawyers for the Regents,
you may find that you can easily get permission to migrate the
license to the current "BSD License".

richard
--
Richard Welty                                         rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
    Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Richard Welty wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> > > The result of this ambiguity is that the
> > > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
>
> > We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
> > We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
>
> but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
> changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
> to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
> advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
> all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
> the original BSD project.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from
every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there
might be someone in there who disagrees with the change.

Not even the Regents can backdate a licence chage and have it affect all
subsequent contributions.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good
> men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
> "The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be
> governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:01:39 +1100 Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from
> every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there
> might be someone in there who disagrees with the change.

i don't. i'm a geek who is refusing to play lawyer right now. it might
be a good idea to consult with one.

note, however, that the copyright assignment is to:

Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, The PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California

which suggests that the Regents and "The PostgreSQL Global
Development Group" hold the rights, and so those are the only two
entities that would need to grant permission. i'm not sure what kind
of legal entity the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is,
though. it might end up meaning each individual, if it's not an
actual corporation. there's no substitute for an informed legal
opinion on this subject. is one available?

richard
--
Richard Welty                                         rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
    Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security