Обсуждение: AW: beta testing version
> > > No, WAL does help, cause you can then pull in your last dump and recover > > > up to the moment that power cable was pulled out of the wall ... > > > > False, on so many counts I can't list them all. > > would love to hear them ... I'm always opening to having my > misunderstandings corrected ... Only what has been transferred off site can be considered safe. But: all the WAL improvements serve to reduce the probability that you 1. need to restore and 2. need to restore from offsite backups. If you need to restore from offsite backup you loose transactions unless you transfer the WAL synchronously with every commit. Andreas
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > > > > No, WAL does help, cause you can then pull in your last dump and recover > > > > up to the moment that power cable was pulled out of the wall ... > > > > > > False, on so many counts I can't list them all. > > > > would love to hear them ... I'm always opening to having my > > misunderstandings corrected ... > > Only what has been transferred off site can be considered safe. > But: all the WAL improvements serve to reduce the probability that > you 1. need to restore and 2. need to restore from offsite backups. > > If you need to restore from offsite backup you loose transactions > unless you transfer the WAL synchronously with every commit. Currently the only way to avoid losing those transactions is by replicating transactions at the application layer. That is, the application talks to two different database instances, and enters transactions into both. That's pretty hard to retrofit into an existing application, so you'd really rather have replication in the database. Of course, that's something PostgreSQL, Inc. is also working on. Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
At 11:09 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote: >On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: >> If you need to restore from offsite backup you loose transactions >> unless you transfer the WAL synchronously with every commit. >Currently the only way to avoid losing those transactions is by >replicating transactions at the application layer. That is, the >application talks to two different database instances, and enters >transactions into both. That's pretty hard to retrofit into an >existing application, so you'd really rather have replication in >the database. Of course, that's something PostgreSQL, Inc. is also >working on. Recovery alone isn't quite that difficult. You don't need to instantiate your database instance until you need to apply the archived transactions, i.e. after catastrophic failure destroys your db server. You need to do two things: 1. Transmit a consistent (known-state) snapshot of the database offsite. 2. Synchronously tranfer the WAL as part of every commit (question, do wait to log a "commit" locally until after the remotesite acks that it got the WAL?) Then you take a new machine, build a database out of the snapshot, and apply the archived redo logs and off you go. If you get tired of saving oodles of redo archives, you make a new snapshot and accumulate the WAL from that point forward. Of course, that's not a fast failover solution. The scenario you describe leads to being able to quickly switch over to a backup server when the primary server fails. Much better for 24/7/365-style computing. Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? I've not seen discussions about it here, and the two of the three most active developers (Jan and Tom) work for Great Bridge, not PostgreSQL, Inc... I should think Vadim should play a large role in any effort to add WAL-based replication to Postgres. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 11:48:23AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: > At 11:09 AM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:01:15AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > >> If you need to restore from offsite backup you loose transactions > >> unless you transfer the WAL synchronously with every commit. > > >Currently the only way to avoid losing those transactions is by > >replicating transactions at the application layer. That is, the > >application talks to two different database instances, and enters > >transactions into both. That's pretty hard to retrofit into an > >existing application, so you'd really rather have replication in > >the database. Of course, that's something PostgreSQL, Inc. is also > >working on. > > Recovery alone isn't quite that difficult. You don't need to instantiate > your database instance until you need to apply the archived transactions, > i.e. after catastrophic failure destroys your db server. True, it's sufficient for the application just to log the text of its updating transactions off-site. Then, to recover, instantiate a database from a backup and have the application re-run its transactions. > You need to do two things: (Remember, we're talking about what you could do *now*, with 7.1. Presumably with 7.2 other options will open.) > 1. Transmit a consistent (known-state) snapshot of the database offsite. > > 2. Synchronously tranfer the WAL as part of every commit (question, do > wait to log a "commit" locally until after the remote site acks that > it got the WAL?) > > Then you take a new machine, build a database out of the snapshot, and > apply the archived redo logs and off you go. If you get tired of saving > oodles of redo archives, you make a new snapshot and accumulate the > WAL from that point forward. I don't know of any way to synchronously transfer the WAL, currently. Anyway, I would expect doing it to interfere seriously with performance. The "wait to log a 'commit' locally until after the remote site acks that it got the WAL" is (akin to) the familiar two-phase commit. Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
At 12:56 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote: >(Remember, we're talking about what you could do *now*, with 7.1. >Presumably with 7.2 other options will open.) Maybe *you* are :) Seriously, I'm thinking out loud about future possibilities. Putting a lot of work into building up a temporary solution on top of 7.1 doesn't make a lot of sense, anyone wanting to work on such things ought to think about 7.2, which presumably will beta sometime mid-2001 or so??? And I don't think there are 7.1 hacks that are simple ... could be wrong, though. >I don't know of any way to synchronously transfer the WAL, currently. Nope. >Anyway, I would expect doing it to interfere seriously with performance. Yep. Anyone here have experience with replication and Oracle or others? I've heard from one source that setting it up reliabily in Oracle and getting the switch from the dead to the backup server working properly was something of a DBA nightmare, but that's true of just about anything in Oracle. Once it was up, it worked reliably, though (also typical of Oracle). >The "wait to log a 'commit' locally until after the remote site acks that >it got the WAL" is (akin to) the familiar two-phase commit. Right. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Don Baccus writes: > Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. > I've not seen discussions about it here, and the two of the three most > active developers (Jan and Tom) work for Great Bridge, not PostgreSQL, > Inc... Vadim Mikheev and Thomas Lockhart work for PostgreSQL, Inc., at least in some form or another. Which *might* be construed as a reason for their perceived inactivity. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Don Baccus writes: > >> Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? > >Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. "Advanced Replication and Distributed Information capabilities are also under development to meet specificbusiness and competitiverequirements for both PostgreSQL, Inc. and clients. Several of these enhancedPostgreSQL, Inc. developments mayremain proprietary for up to 24 months, with availability limited toclients and partners, in order to assist us in recoveringdevelopment costs and continue to provide fundingfor our other Open Source contributions. " Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when the world finds out about it. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: > At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >Don Baccus writes: > > > >> Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? > > > >Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. > <snip> > > Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when > the world finds out about it. > That one doesn't worry me us much as this quote from the press release at http://www.pgsql.com/press/PR_5.html "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time we are considering requests from a number of development companies and venture capital groups to join us in this process." Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. I realize this is probably just the typical deadline slip that we see on the public releases of pgsql itself, not a silent retraction of the promise to release the code (especially since some of the same core people are involved), but there is a difference: if I absolutely need something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use a snapshot server. With erserver, I'm stuck sitting on my hands, with a promise of future functionality. Well, not really sitting on my hands: working on other tasks, with the assumption that erserver will be there soon. I'd rather not roll my own in an incompatable way, and have to port or redo the custom parts. So, now I'm going into a couple critical, funding decision making meetings in the next few weeks. I was planning on being able to promise certain systems with concrete knowledge of what I will and won't be able to provide, and how much custom coding will be needed. Now, If the schedsule slips much more, I won't. It's even possible that the erserver's implementation won't fit my needs at all, and I'll be back rolling my own. I realize this sounds a bit ungrateful: they're giving away the code, after all, and potentially saving my a lot of work. It's just the contrast between the really open work on the core server, and the lack of a peep when the promised deadlines have rolled past that gets under my skin. I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the quasi-propriatary extensions. Ross
At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: >"We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to >the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time >we are considering requests from a number of development companies and >venture capital groups to join us in this process." > >Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of >people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye >toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working >on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality >suppressing the competition. Well, this is just all 'round a bad precedent and an unwelcome path for PostgreSQL, Inc to embark upon. They've also embarked on one fully proprietary product (built on PG), which means they're not an Open Source company, just a sometimes Open Source company. It's a bit ironic to learn about this on the same day I learned that Solaris 8 is being made available in source form. Sun's slowly "getting it" and moving glacially towards Open Source, while PostgreSQL, Inc. seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. >if I absolutely need >something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use >a snapshot server. This work might be released as Open Source, but it isn't an open development scenario. The core work's not available for public scrutiny, and the details of what they're actually up don't appear to be public either. OK, they're probably funding Vadim's work on WAL, so the idictment's probably not 100% accurate - but I don't know that. >I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an >open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has >slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs >in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the >quasi-propriatary extensions. Which makes me wonder, is Vadim's time going to be eaten up by working on these quasi-proprietary extensions that the rest of us won't get for two years unless we become customers of Postgres, Inc? Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. These developments are a major annoyance. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:51:15PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: > > At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > >Don Baccus writes: > > > > > >> Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? > > > > > >Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. > > > <snip> > > > > Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when > > the world finds out about it. > > > > That one doesn't worry me us much as this quote from the press release at > > http://www.pgsql.com/press/PR_5.html > > "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to > the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time > we are considering requests from a number of development companies and > venture capital groups to join us in this process." > > Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of > people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye > toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working > on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality > suppressing the competition. For What It's Worth: In the three years (has it really been that long?) that I've been off and on Postgres mailing lists, I've probably seen at least 100 requests for replication, with about 40 of them mentioning implementing it themself. I'm pretty sure that being told "PostgreSQL Inc. is working on that" is not the only thing stopping it from happening. Most people just aren't up to making it happen. -- Adam Haberlach |"California's the big burrito, Texas is the big adam@newsnipple.com | taco ... and following that theme, Florida is http://www.newsnipple.com| the big tamale ... and the only tamale that '88 EX500 | counts any more." -- Dan Rather
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: ... > Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, > leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems > under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a > long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. I doubt that. There is an IB (Interbase) replication option today, but you must purchase it. That isn't so bad actually. PostgreSQL looks to be going that way too: base functionality is open source, periphial companies make money selling extensions. Besides simple master-slave replication is old news anyhow, and not terribly useful. Products like FrontBase (www.frontbase.com) have full shared-nothing cluster support too (FrontBase is commerical). Clustering is a much better solution for redundancy purposes that replication. Tom
At 01:52 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Tom Samplonius wrote: > I doubt that. There is an IB (Interbase) replication option today, but >you must purchase it. That isn't so bad actually. PostgreSQL looks to be >going that way too: base functionality is open source, periphial >companies make money selling extensions. PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. Thus far Great Bridge claims to be 100% devoted to the Open Source model. > Besides simple master-slave replication is old news anyhow, and not >terribly useful. Products like FrontBase (www.frontbase.com) have full >shared-nothing cluster support too (FrontBase is commerical). Clustering >is a much better solution for redundancy purposes that replication. I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this signals for their future direction. If PG, Inc starts doing proprietary chunks, and Great Bridge remains 100% dedicated to Open Source, I know who I'll want to succeed and prosper. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:47:19PM -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote: > > > > Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of > > people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye > > toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working > > on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality > > suppressing the competition. Well, I'll admit that this was getting a little over the top, especially quoted out of context. ;-) > > For What It's Worth: In the three years (has it really been that long?) > that I've been off and on Postgres mailing lists, I've probably seen at > least 100 requests for replication, with about 40 of them mentioning > implementing it themself. > > I'm pretty sure that being told "PostgreSQL Inc. is working on that" is > not the only thing stopping it from happening. Most people just aren't up > to making it happen. Indeed. And it's only been less than a year that that response has been given. However, it is only in that same timespan that the functionality and performance of the core server gotten to the point were replication/remote access is one of immediately fruitful itches to scratch. We'll see what happens in the future. Ross
> PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan.
> I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer
> as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this
> signals for their future direction.
Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big
job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my fault that you
haven't seen the demo code released; I've been packaging it to make it a
bit easier to work with.
> If PG, Inc starts doing proprietary chunks, and Great Bridge remains 100%
> dedicated to Open Source, I know who I'll want to succeed and prosper.
Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who
have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most
companies in business today. We are eager to show how this can be done
on a full time basis, not only as an avocation. And we are eager to do
this as part of the community we have helped to build.
As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
a few flaws... ;)
- Thomas
At 02:58 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: >> PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. >> I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer >> as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this >> signals for their future direction. > >Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big >job and difficult to do correctly. Presumably what has kept it from happening in the past is that other things were of much higher priority. Replicating a database on an engine as unreliable as PG was in earlier incarnations would simply replicate your problems, for instance. This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past few years by volunteers. It also ignores the fact that folks in other companies do get paid to work on open source software full-time without having to resort to creating closed source, proprietary products. > It is entirely my fault that you >haven't seen the demo code released; I've been packaging it to make it a >bit easier to work with. OK, good, this part gets open sourced. Still not an open development model. Knowing details about what's going on while code's being developed, not to mention being able to critique decisions, is one of the major benefits of the open development model. >Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who >have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most >companies in business today. We are eager to show how this can be done >on a full time basis, not only as an avocation. Building closed source proprietary products helps you live the open source philosophy on a full-time basis? ... >As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let >me know. Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business generates income, but how it generates income. Your comment is the classic one tossed out by closed-source, proprietary software advocates who dismiss open source software out-of-hand. Couldn't you think of something better, at least? Like ... something original? > The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be >a few flaws... ;) That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is original. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:32:14PM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: > At 02:58 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > >> PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. > >> I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer > >> as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this . . . > >As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > >me know. > > Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business > generates income, but how it generates income. So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income, but I'm not sure that was part of their plan... > Your comment is the classic one tossed out by closed-source, proprietary > software advocates who dismiss open source software out-of-hand. > > Couldn't you think of something better, at least? Like ... something > original? > > > The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > >a few flaws... ;) > > That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is > original. It wasn't an analogy. In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up? -- Adam Haberlach |"California's the big burrito, Texas is the big adam@newsnipple.com | taco ... and following that theme, Florida is http://www.newsnipple.com| the big tamale ... and the only tamale that '88 EX500 | counts any more." -- Dan Rather
> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
> few years by volunteers.
imho it does not, and if somehow you can read that into it then you have
a much different understanding of language than I. I *am* one of those
volunteers, and know that the hundreds of hours I have contributed is
only a small part of the whole.
My discussion on this is over; apologies to others for helping to waste
bandwidth :(
I'll be happy to continue it next over some beers, which is a much more
appropriate setting.
- Thomas
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. > > I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer > > as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this > > signals for their future direction. > Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big > job and difficult to do correctly. Well, this has nothing whatsoever to do with open or closed source. Linux and FreeBSD are much larger, much harder to do correctly, as they are supersets of thousands of open source projects. Complexity is not relative to licensing. > > If PG, Inc starts doing proprietary chunks, and Great Bridge remains 100% > > dedicated to Open Source, I know who I'll want to succeed and prosper. > Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who > have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most > companies in business today. That's one of the reasons why it's worked... open source meant open contribution, open collaboration, open bug fixing. The price of admission was doing your own installs, service, support, and giving something back.... PG, I assume, is pretty much the same as most open source projects, massive amounts of contribution shepherded by one or two individuals. > We are eager to show how this can be done > on a full time basis, not only as an avocation. And we are eager to do > this as part of the community we have helped to build. > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > a few flaws... ;) Well, whether or not a product is open, or closed, has very little to do with commercial success. Heck, the entire IBM PC spec was open, and that certainly didn't hurt Dell, Compaq, etc.... the genie coming out of the bottle _only_ hurt IBM. In this case, however, the genie's been out for quite a while.... BUT: People don't buy a product because it's open, they buy it because it offers significant value above and beyond what they can do *without* paying for a product. Linus didn't start a new kernel out of some idealistic mantra of freeing the world, he was broke and wanted a *nix-y OS. Years later, the product has grown massively. Those who are profiting off of it are unrelated to the code, to most of the developers.... why is this? As it is, any company trying to make a closed version of an open source product has some _massive_ work to do. Manuals. Documentation. Sales. Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating features. And building a _product_. Most Open Source projects are not products, they are merely code, and some horrid documentation, and maybe some support. The companies making money are not making better code, they are making better _products_.... And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. Want to make money from open source? Well, you have to find, or build, a _product_. Right now, there are no OS db products that can compare to oh, an Oracle product, a MSSQL product. There may be superior code, but that doesn't make a difference in business. Business has very little to do with building the perfect mousetrap, if nobody can easily use it. -Bop -- Brought to you from boop!, the dual boot Linux/Win95 Compaq Presario 1625 laptop, currently running RedHat 6.1. Your bopping may vary.
>And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete >with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company >to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. Mac OS X. ;-) -pmb -- bierman@apple.com "4 out of 5 people with the wrong hardware want to run Mac OS X because..." http://www.newertech.com/oscompatibility/osxinfo.html
At 09:56 PM 12/2/00 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote: ... >And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete >with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company >to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. > >Want to make money from open source? Well, you have to find, or build, >a _product_. Right now, there are no OS db products that can compare to oh, >an Oracle product, a MSSQL product. There may be superior code, but that >doesn't make a difference in business. Business has very little to do >with building the perfect mousetrap, if nobody can easily use it. Which of course is the business model - certainly not a "zero revenue" model as Thomas arrogantly suggests - which OSS service companies are following. They provide the cocoon around the code. I buy RH releases from Fry's. Yes, I could download, but the price is such that I'd rather just go buy the damned release CDs. I don't begrudge it, they're providing me a real SERVICE, saving me time, which saves me dollars in opportunity costs (given my $200/hr customer billing rate). They make money buy publishing releases, I still get all the sources. We all win. It is not a bad model. Question - if this model sucks, then certainly PG, Inc's net revenue last year was greater than any true open source software company's? I mean, let's see that slam against the "zero revenue business model" be proven by showing us some real numbers. Just what was PG, Inc's net revenue last year, and just how does their mixed revenue model stack up against the OSS world? (NOT the .com world, which is in a different business, no matter what Thomas wants to claim). - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: >> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past >> few years by volunteers. > >imho it does not, Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if it were done Open Source". In other words, it is much harder than any of the work done by the same group of people before they started working on proprietary versions. And that the only way to get them doing their best work is to put them on proprietary, or "semi-proprietary" projects, though 24 months from now, who's going to care? You've opened the door to IB prominence, not only shooting PG's open source purity down in flames, but probably PG, Inc's as well - IF IB can figure out their political problems. IB, as it stands, is a damned good product in many ways ahead of PG. You're giving them life by this approach, which is a kind of bizarre businees strategy. > I *am* one of those volunteers Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering to test your code, and leaving on vacation. You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
At 09:29 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote: >> Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business >> generates income, but how it generates income. > > So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income, >but I'm not sure that was part of their plan... VA Linux is a HARDWARE COMPANY. They sell servers. "We've engineered 2U performance into a 1U box" is their current line. Dell probably makes more money on their Linux server offerings (I have to admit that donb.photo.net is running on one of their PowerEdge servers) than VA Linux does. If I can show you a HARDWARE COMPANY that is diving on selling MS NT servers, will you agree that this proves that the closed source and open source models both must be wrong, because HARDWARE COMPANIES based on each paradigm are losing money??? >> > The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be >> >a few flaws... ;) >> >> That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is >> original. > It wasn't an analogy. Sure it is. Read, damn it. First he makes the statement that a business based on open source is, by definition, a zero-revenue company then he raises the spectre of .com companies (how many of them are open source?) as support for his argument. OK, it's not an analogy, it's a disassociation with reality. Feel better? > In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over >this issue every three months? Maybe you don't care about the open source aspect of this, but as a user with about 1500 Open Source advocates using my code, I do. If IB comes forth in a fully Open Source state my user base will insist I switch. And I will. And I'll stop telling the world that MySQL sucks, too. Or at least that they suck worse than the PG world :) There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? (Yeah, that's extremist, but seeing PG, Inc. lay down the formal foundation for such co-opting by taking the first step might well make the potential reality become real. It certainly puts some of the long-term developers in no position to argue against such a co-opted snitch of the code). I have to say I'm feeling pretty silly about raising such an effort to increase PG awareness in mindshare vs. MySQL. I mean, if PG, Inc's efforts somehow delineate the hopes and goals of the PG community, I'm fairly disgusted. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would > allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. > > It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. > > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com, not by PG, Inc. Vadim
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes: > At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > >> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past > >> few years by volunteers. > > > >imho it does not, > > Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so > hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a > PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if > it were done Open Source". <snip> > > - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> > Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest > Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at > http://donb.photo.net. Mr. Baccus, It is funny how you rant and rave about the importance of opensource and how Postgresql Inc. making an non-opensource product is bad. Yet I go to your website which is full of photographs and you make it a big deal about people should not steal your photographs and how someone must buy a commercial license to use them. That doesn't sound very 'open-source' to me! Why don't you practice what you preach and allow redistribution of those photographs? -- Prasanth Kumar kumar1@home.com
Don Baccus writes: > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a privilege, and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible" because they want to get paid for their work and don't choose to give away their code. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
Ron Chmara wrote: > As it is, any company trying to make a closed version of an open source > product has some _massive_ work to do. Manuals. Documentation. Sales. > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating > features. And building a _product_. > > Most Open Source projects are not products, they are merely code, and some > horrid documentation, and maybe some support. The companies making money > are not making better code, they are making better _products_.... > > And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete > with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company > to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. This kind of stuff is more along the lines of what Great Bridge is doing. In about a week, we'll be releasing a GB-branded release of 7.0.3 - including printed manuals (much of which is new), a GUI installer (which is open source), support packages including fully-staffed 24/7. Details to follow soon on pgsql-announce. I don't want to speak for Pgsql Inc., but it seems to me that they are pursuing a slightly different business model than us - more focused on providing custom development around the base PostgreSQL software. And that's a great way to get more people using PostgreSQL. Some of what they create for their customers may be open source, some not. It's certainly their decision - and it's a perfectly justifiable business model, followed by open source companies such as Covalent (Apache), Zend (PHP), and TurboLinux. I don't think it's productive or appropriate to beat up on Pgsql Inc for developing bolt-on products in a different way - particularly with Vadim's clarification that the bolt-ons don't require anything special in the open source backend. Our own business model is, as I indicated, different. We got a substantial investment from our parent company, whose chairman sat on the Red Hat board for three years, and a mandate to create a *big* company that could provide the infrastructure (human and technical) to enable PostgreSQL to go up against the proprietary players like Oracle and Microsoft. A fully-staffed 24/7 data center isn't cheap, and our services won't be either. But it's a different type of business - we're providing the benefits of the open source development model to a group of customers that might not otherwise get involved, precisely because they demand to see a company of Great Bridge's heft behind a product before they buy. I think PostgreSQL and other open source projects are big enough for lots of different companies, with lots of different types of business models. Indeed, from what I've seen of Pgsql Inc (and I hope I haven't mischaracterized them), our business models are highly complementary. At Great Bridge, we hope and expect that other companies that "get it" will get more involved with PostgreSQL - that can only add to the strength of the project. Regards, Ned -- ---------------------------------------------------- Ned Lilly e: ned@greatbridge.com Vice President w: www.greatbridge.com Evangelism / Hacker Relations v: 757.233.5523 Great Bridge, LLC f: 757.233.5555
> > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > features. And building a _product_. Oops. You didn't really mean that, did you? Could it be that there are some people out there thinking "let them free software fools do the hard initial work, once things are working nicely, we take over, add a few "secret" ingredients, and voila - the commercial product has been created? After reading the statement above I believe that surely most of the honest developers involved in postgres would wish they had chosen GPL as licensing scheme. I agree that most of the work is always done by a few. I also agree that it would be nice if they could get some financial reward for it. But no dirty tricks please. Do not betray the base. Otherwise, the broad developer base will be gone before you even can say "freesoftware". I, for my part, have learned another lesson today. I was just about to give in with the licensing scheme in our project to allow the GPL incompatible OpenSSL to be used. After reading the above now I know it is worth the extra effort to "roll our own" or wait for another GPL'd solution rather than sacrificing the unique protection the GPL gives us. Horst coordinator gnumed project
> > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? > > Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any > such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of > PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a > privilege, and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible" > because they want to get paid for their work and don't choose to give away > their code. Just bear in mind that although a few developers always deliver outstanding performance in any project, those open source projects have usually seen a huge broad developer base. Hundreds of people putting their effort into the project. These people never ask for a cent, never even dream of some commercial benefit. They do it for the sake of creating something good, being part of something great. Especially in the case of Postgres the "product" has a long heritage, and the most active people today are not neccessarily the ones who have put in most "total" effort (AFAIK, I might be wrong here). Anyway, Postgres would not be where it is today without the hundreds of small cooperators & testers. Lock them out from the source code - even if it is only a side branch, and Postgres will die (well, at least it would die for our project) Open source is not a mere marketing model. It is a philosophy. It is about essential freedom, about human progress, about freedom of speech and thought. It is about sharing and caring. Those who don't understand this, should please stick to their ropes and develop closed source from the beginning and not try to fool the free software community. Horst
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > a few flaws... ;) While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have contributed to other environments. The prospect that I could create a piece of code, spend weeks/years of my own time on something and some entity can come along, take what I've written and create a product which is better for it, and then not share back is offensive. Under GPL it is illegal. (Postgres should try to move to GPL) I am working on a full-text search engine for Postgres. A really fast one, something better than anything else out there. It combines the power and scalability of a web search engine, with the data-mining capabilities of SQL. If I write this extension to Postgres, and release it, is it right that a business can come along, add a few things here and there and introduce a new closed source product on what I have written? That is certainly not what I intend. My intention was to honor the people before me for providing the rich environment which is Postgres. I have made real money using Postgres in a work environment. The time I would give back more than covers MSSQL/Oracle licenses. Open source is a social agreement, not a business model. If you break the social agreement for a business model, the business model will fail because the society which fundamentally created the product you wish to sell will crumble from mistrust (or shun you). In short, it is wrong to sell the work of others without proper compensation and the full agreement of everyone that has contributed. If you don't get that, get out of the open source market now. That said, there is a long standing business model which is 100% compatible with Open Source and it is of the lowly 'VAR.' You do not think for one minute that an Oracle VAR would dare to add features to Oracle and make their own SQL do you? As a PostgreSQL "VAR" you are in a better position that any other VAR. You get to partner in the code development process. (You couldn't ask Oracle to add a feature and expect to keep it to yourself, could you?) I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation cheat the spirit of open source "just a little" for short term gain. -- http://www.mohawksoft.com
At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote: >> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc >> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After >> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would >> allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. >> >> It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. >> >> How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? > >I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related >to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: (not based on WAL) That's wasn't clear from the blurb. Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products poisons the well. It strengthens FUD arguments of the "open source can't provide enterprise solutions" variety. "Look, even PostgreSQL, Inc realizes that you must follow a close sourced model in order to provide tools for the corporate world." - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
> >I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related > >to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: > > (not based on WAL) > > That's wasn't clear from the blurb. > > Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products > poisons the well. It strengthens FUD arguments of the "open source can't > provide enterprise solutions" variety. "Look, even PostgreSQL, Inc realizes > that you must follow a close sourced model > in order to provide tools for the corporate world." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you miss Thomas' answer? Wasn't it clear that the order is to provide income? Vadim
I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these companies are making good money off a business plan that was basically "hey, lets take some of that open source and make a real product out of it...". As long as they dribble releases into the community, they're not in violation... Its not a bad business model if you think about it, if you can take a product that is good (great as in PG) and add value, sell it and make money, why not? Hell, you didn't have to spend the gazillion R&D dollars on the initial design and implementation, your basically reaping the rewards off of the work of other people. Are you ready for hundreds upon hundreds of little projects turning into "startup" companies? It was bound to happen. Why? because money is involved, plain and simple. Maybe its a natural progression of this stuff, who knows, I just know that I've been around the block a couple times, been in the industry too long to know that the minority voice never gets the prize... we usually set the trend and pay for it in the end... fatalistic? maybe. But not far from the truth... Sorry to be a downer... The Red Sox didn't get Mussina.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Baccus" <dhogaza@pacifier.com> To: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu> Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>; "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version > At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > >"We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to > >the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time > >we are considering requests from a number of development companies and > >venture capital groups to join us in this process." > > > >Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of > >people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye > >toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working > >on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality > >suppressing the competition. > > Well, this is just all 'round a bad precedent and an unwelcome path > for PostgreSQL, Inc to embark upon. > > They've also embarked on one fully proprietary product (built on PG), > which means they're not an Open Source company, just a sometimes Open > Source company. > > It's a bit ironic to learn about this on the same day I learned that > Solaris 8 is being made available in source form. Sun's slowly "getting > it" and moving glacially towards Open Source, while PostgreSQL, Inc. > seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. > > >if I absolutely need > >something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use > >a snapshot server. > > This work might be released as Open Source, but it isn't an open development > scenario. The core work's not available for public scrutiny, and the details > of what they're actually up don't appear to be public either. > > OK, they're probably funding Vadim's work on WAL, so the idictment's probably > not 100% accurate - but I don't know that. > > >I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an > >open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has > >slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs > >in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the > >quasi-propriatary extensions. > > Which makes me wonder, is Vadim's time going to be eaten up by working > on these quasi-proprietary extensions that the rest of us won't get > for two years unless we become customers of Postgres, Inc? > > Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, > leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems > under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a > long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. > > These developments are a major annoyance. > > > > - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> > Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest > Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at > http://donb.photo.net.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Adam Haberlach wrote: > In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over > this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we > are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up? no skin off my back: pgsql-advocacypgsql-chatpgsql-benchmarks -advocacy/-chat are pretty much the same concept ...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > > I *am* one of those volunteers > > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering > to test your code, and leaving on vacation. > > You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now. Okay, so let me get this one straight ... it was irresponsible for him to put code in that was broken the last time, but it wouldn't be irresponsible for us to release code that we don't feel is ready this time? *raised eyebrow* Just want to get this straight, as it kinda sounds hypocritical to me, but want to make sure that I understand before I fully arrive at that conclusion ... :)
Don Baccus wrote: > > At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > >> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past > >> few years by volunteers. > > > >imho it does not, > > Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so > hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a > PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if > it were done Open Source". > > In other words, it is much harder than any of the work done by the > same group of people before they started working on proprietary > versions. > > And that the only way to get them doing their best work is to put them > on proprietary, or "semi-proprietary" projects, though 24 months from > now, who's going to care? You've opened the door to IB prominence, not > only shooting PG's open source purity down in flames, but probably PG, Inc's > as well - IF IB can figure out their political problems. > > IB, as it stands, is a damned good product in many ways ahead of PG. You're > giving them life by this approach, which is a kind of bizarre businees strategy. > You (and others ;) may also be interested in SAPDB (SAP's version of Adabas), that is soon to be released under GPL. It is already downloadable for free use from www.sapdb.org ------------- Hannu
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Horst Herb wrote: > > > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. > Figuring > > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > features. And building a _product_. > > Oops. You didn't really mean that, did you? Could it be that there are some > people out there thinking "let them free software fools do the hard initial > work, once things are working nicely, we take over, add a few "secret" > ingredients, and voila - the commercial product has been created? > > After reading the statement above I believe that surely most of the > honest developers involved in postgres would wish they had chosen GPL > as licensing scheme. > > I agree that most of the work is always done by a few. I also agree > that it would be nice if they could get some financial reward for it. > But no dirty tricks please. Do not betray the base. Otherwise, the > broad developer base will be gone before you even can say > "freesoftware". > > I, for my part, have learned another lesson today. I was just about to > give in with the licensing scheme in our project to allow the GPL > incompatible OpenSSL to be used. After reading the above now I know it > is worth the extra effort to "roll our own" or wait for another GPL'd > solution rather than sacrificing the unique protection the GPL gives > us. to this day, this still cracks me up ... if a BSD licensed OSS project somehow gets its code base "closed", that closing can only affect the code base from its closing on forward ... on that day, there is *nothing* stopping from the OSS community from taking the code base from teh second before it was closed and running with it ... you get no more, and no less, protection under either license. the "protection" that GPL provides is that it prevents someone from taking the code, making proprietary modications to it and branding it as their own for release ... cause under GPL, they would have to release the source code for the modifications ... PgSQL, Inc hasn't done anything so far but develop third party *applications* over top of PgSQL, with plans to release them at various stages as the clients we are developing them for permit ... as well as provided consulting to clients looking at moving towards PgSQL and requiring help with migrations ... We aren't going to release something that is half-assed and buggy ... the whole erServer stuff right now is *totally* external to the PgSQL server, and, as such, is a third-party application, not a proprietary extension like Don wants to make it out to be ...
"Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com> writes: > I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is > doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look > around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these > companies are making good money off a business plan that was basically > "hey, lets take some of that open source and make a real product out > of it...". I doubt many of these "make good money". We're almost breaking even, which is probably the best among these. Note also that some companies contribute engineering resources into core free software components, like gcc, gdb, the linux kernel, glibc, gnome, gtk+, rpm, apache, XFree, KDE - AFAIK, Red Hat and SuSE are by far the two doing this the most. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
mlw wrote: > > Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > > a few flaws... ;) > > While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have > contributed to other environments. The prospect that I could create a > piece of code, spend weeks/years of my own time on something and some > entity can come along, take what I've written and create a product which > is better for it, and then not share back is offensive. Under GPL it is > illegal. (Postgres should try to move to GPL) I think that forbidding anyone else from profiting from your work is also somewhat obscene ;) The whole idea of open source is that in open ideas mature faster, bugs are > I am working on a full-text search engine for Postgres. A really fast > one, something better than anything else out there. Is'nt everybody ;) > It combines the power and scalability of a web search engine, with > the data-mining capabilities of SQL. Are you doing it in a fully open-source fashion or just planning to release it as OS "when it somewhat works" ? > If I write this extension to Postgres, and release it, is it right that > a business can come along, add a few things here and there and introduce > a new closed source product on what I have written? That is certainly > not what I intend. If your intention is to later cash in on proprietary uses of your code you should of course use GPL. > My intention was to honor the people before me for > providing the rich environment which is Postgres. I have made real money > using Postgres in a work environment. The time I would give back more > than covers MSSQL/Oracle licenses. > > Open source is a social agreement, not a business model. Not one but many (and btw. incompatible) social agreements. > If you break the social agreement for a business model, You are free to put your additions under GPL, it is just a tradition in PG community not to contaminate the core with anything less free than BSD (and yes, forcing your idea of freedom on other people qualifies as "less free" ;) > the business model will fail > because the society which fundamentally created the product you wish to > sell will crumble from mistrust (or shun you). In short, it is wrong to > sell the work of others without proper compensation and the full > agreement of everyone that has contributed. If you don't get that, get > out of the open source market now. SO now a social contract is a market ? I _am_ confused. > That said, there is a long standing business model which is 100% > compatible with Open Source and it is of the lowly 'VAR.' You do not > think for one minute that an Oracle VAR would dare to add features to > Oracle and make their own SQL do you? But if Oracle were released under BSD license, it might benefit both the VAR and the customer to do so under some circumstances. > As a PostgreSQL "VAR" you are in a better position that any other VAR. > You get to partner in the code development process. (You couldn't ask > Oracle to add a feature and expect to keep it to yourself, could you?) You could ask another VAR to do that if you yourself are incapable/don't have time, etc. And of course I can keep it to myself even if done by Oracle. What I can't do is forbid others from having it too . > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation > cheat the spirit of open source "just a little" for short term gain. Do you mean that anyone who has contributed to an opensource project should be forbidden from doing any closed-source development ? ----------- Hannu
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > > > > I *am* one of those volunteers > > > > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering > > to test your code, and leaving on vacation. > > > > You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now. > > Okay, so let me get this one straight ... it was irresponsible for him to > put code in that was broken the last time, but it wouldn't be > irresponsible for us to release code that we don't feel is ready this > time? *raised eyebrow* > > Just want to get this straight, as it kinda sounds hypocritical to me, but > want to make sure that I understand before I fully arrive at that > conclusion ... :) IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc promising to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for confirmation that this is just a schedule slip and that the project is still going on and going to be released as open source. What seems to be the answer is: "NO, we will keep the replication code proprietary". I have not seen this answer myself, but i've got this impression from the contents of the whole discussion. Do you know if this is the case ? ----------- Hannu
Hannu Krosing wrote: > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation > > cheat the spirit of open source "just a little" for short term gain. > > Do you mean that anyone who has contributed to an opensource project > should be forbidden from doing any closed-source development ? No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what ever you want. I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand how anyone could think differently. -- http://www.mohawksoft.com
No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start, you'd have to say those people made "good money". Bad market or good market, those "friends of Red Hat" made some serious coin. Let me clarify, I'm not against this process (and making money), I just think there is an issue with OSL that will start to catch up with itself pretty soon. g. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trond Eivind GlomsrØd" <teg@redhat.com> To: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version "Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com> writes: > I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is > doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look > around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these > companies are making good money off a business plan that was basically > "hey, lets take some of that open source and make a real product out > of it...". I doubt many of these "make good money". We're almost breaking even, which is probably the best among these. Note also that some companies contribute engineering resources into core free software components, like gcc, gdb, the linux kernel, glibc, gnome, gtk+, rpm, apache, XFree, KDE - AFAIK, Red Hat and SuSE are by far the two doing this the most. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
"Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com> writes: > No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start, > you'd have to say those people made "good money". I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or 2 billion dollars year, which was kindof weird). -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Gary MacDougall wrote: > > > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on > > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be > > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. > > > > Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional > code, even if its dependant on something. You could consider it > "propietary" > and charge for it. There a tons of these things going on right now. > > Having dependancy on an open source product/code/functionality does not > make one bound to make thier code "open source". > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > > ever you want. > > Thats a given. > > > I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use > > it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand > > how anyone could think differently. > > The issue isn't "fairness", the issue really is really trust. And from what > I'm > seeing, like anything else in life, if you rely solely on trust when money > is > involved, the system will fail--eventually. > > sad... isn't it? That's why, as bad as it is, GPL is the best answer. -- http://www.mohawksoft.com
> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. > Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional code, even if its dependant on something. You could consider it "propietary" and charge for it. There a tons of these things going on right now. Having dependancy on an open source product/code/functionality does not make one bound to make thier code "open source". > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > ever you want. Thats a given. > I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use > it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand > how anyone could think differently. The issue isn't "fairness", the issue really is really trust. And from what I'm seeing, like anything else in life, if you rely solely on trust when money is involved, the system will fail--eventually. sad... isn't it? > -- > http://www.mohawksoft.com
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 05:17:36PM -0500, mlw wrote: > ... if I write code which is dependent on > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. This is short and I will say no more: The entire social contract around PostgreSQL is written down in the license. Those who have contributed to the project (are presumed to) have read it and agreed to it before submitting their changes. Some people have contributed intending someday to fold the resulting code base into their proprietary product, and carefully checked to ensure the license would allow it. Nobody has any legal or moral right to impose extra use restrictions, on their own code or (especially!) on anybody else's. If you would like to place additional restrictions on your own contributions, you can: 1. Work on other projects. (Adabas will soon be GPL, but you can start now. Others are coming, too.) There's alwaysplenty of work to be done on Free Software. 2. Fork the source base, add your code, and release the whole thing under GPL. You can even fold in changes from the originalproject, later. (Don't expect everybody to get along, afterward.) A less drastic alternative is to release GPL'dpatches. 3. Grin and bear it. Greed is a sin, but so is envy. Flame wars about licensing mainly distract people from writing code. How would *you* like the time spent? Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
mlw wrote: > > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very > > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because > > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation > > > cheat the spirit of open source "just a little" for short term gain. > > > > Do you mean that anyone who has contributed to an opensource project > > should be forbidden from doing any closed-source development ? > > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. That may be so, that the world as a whole is not that far yet. If open-source is going to prevail (which I believe it will do), it is not because it is "right", but because it is a more efficient way of producing quality software. > I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use > it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand > how anyone could think differently. There can be many many reasons you would need to also write closed-source code. BSD license gives you that freedom (GPL does not). By distributing your code under BSD license you acnowledge that the world is not perfect. This is not the way of a true revolutionary ;) Don't let that scare you away from contributing to PostgreSQL though, You could always contribute and keep your code under different license, GPL,LGPL,MPL, ... It would probably not be integrated in the core, but would very likely be kept in contrib. ---------- Hannu
Adam Haberlach wrote: > In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over > this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we > are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up? pgsql-yawn, where any of them can happen as often and long as they want. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
> mlw wrote: [heavily edited]
>> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
>> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
>> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>> I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
>> it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
>> how anyone could think differently.
You're missing the point almost completely. We've been around on this
GPL-vs-BSD discussion many many many times before, and the discussion
always ends up at the same place: we aren't changing the license.
The two key reasons (IMHO) are:
1. The original code base is BSD. We do not have the right to
unilaterally relabel that code as GPL. Maybe we could try to say that
all additions/changes after a certain date are GPL, but that'd become a
hopeless mess very shortly; how would you keep track of what was which?
Not to mention the fact that a mixed-license project would not satisfy
GPL partisans anyway.
2. Since Postgres is a database, and the vast majority of uses for
databases are business-related, we have to have a license that
businesses will feel comfortable with. One aspect of that comfort is
that they be able to do things like building proprietary applications
atop the database. If we take a purist GPL approach, we'll just drive
away a lot of potential users and contributors. (I for one wouldn't be
here today, most likely, if Postgres had been GPL --- my then company
would not have gotten involved with it.)
I have nothing against GPL; it's appropriate for some things. But
it's not appropriate for *this* project, because of history and subject
matter. We've done just fine with the BSD license and I do not see a
reason to think that GPL would be an improvement.
regards, tom lane
At 5:17 PM -0500 12/3/00, mlw wrote: >I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use >it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand >how anyone could think differently. Yeah, it really sucks when companies that are in buisness to make money by creating solutions and support for end users takethe hard work of volenteers, commit resources to extending and enhancing that work, and make that work more accessableend users (for a fee). Maybe it's unfair that the people at the bottom of that chain don't reap a percentage of the revenue generated at the top,but those people were free to read the license of the product they were contributing to. Ironically, the GPL protects the future income a programmer much bettter than the BSD license, becuase under the GPL theoriginal author can sell the code to a commercial enterprise who otherwise would not have been able to use it. Even moreironically, the GPL doesn't prevent 3rd parties from feeding at the trough as long as they DON'T extend and enhance theproduct. (Though Red Hat and friends donate work back to maintain community support.) To me, Open Source is about admitting that the Computer Science field is in it's infancy, and the complex systems we're buildingtoday are the fundamental building blocks of tomorrow's systems. It is about exchanging control for adoption, a trade-offthat has millions of case studies. Think Different, -pmb -- "Every time you provide an option, you're asking the user to make a decision.That means they will have to think about somethingand decide about it.It's not necessarily a bad thing, but, in general, you should always try tominimize the numberof decisions that people have to make."http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > > > > > > I *am* one of those volunteers > > > > > > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering > > > to test your code, and leaving on vacation. > > > > > > You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now. > > > > Okay, so let me get this one straight ... it was irresponsible for him to > > put code in that was broken the last time, but it wouldn't be > > irresponsible for us to release code that we don't feel is ready this > > time? *raised eyebrow* > > > > Just want to get this straight, as it kinda sounds hypocritical to me, but > > want to make sure that I understand before I fully arrive at that > > conclusion ... :) > > IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc > promising > to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for > confirmation > that this is just a schedule slip and that the project is still going on > and > going to be released as open source. > > What seems to be the answer is: "NO, we will keep the replication code > proprietary". > > I have not seen this answer myself, but i've got this impression from > the contents > of the whole discussion. > > Do you know if this is the case ? If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his part. Vadim did up the software days before the Oracle OpenWorld conference, but it was a very rudimentary implementation. At the show, Thomas dove in to build a basic interface to it, and, as time permits, has been working on packaging to get it into contrib before v7.1 is released ... I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-October, but it is/was purely a scheduale slip ...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, mlw wrote: > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very > > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because > > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation > > > cheat the spirit of open source "just a little" for short term gain. > > > > Do you mean that anyone who has contributed to an opensource project > > should be forbidden from doing any closed-source development ? > > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong. > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > ever you want. > > I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use > it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand > how anyone could think differently.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote: > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > > ever you want. > > Thats a given. okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to make it work ... ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > >> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc > >> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After > >> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would > >> allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. > >> > >> It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. > >> > >> How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? > > > >I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related > >to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: > > (not based on WAL) > > That's wasn't clear from the blurb. > > Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products > poisons the well. It strengthens FUD arguments of the "open source can't > provide enterprise solutions" variety. "Look, even PostgreSQL, Inc realizes > that you must follow a close sourced model in order to provide tools for > the corporate world." Don ... have you never worked for a client that has paid you to develop a product for them? Have you taken the work you did for them, that they paid for, and shoved it out into the community to use for free? Why would we do anything any differently? Your clients ask you to develop something for them as an extension to PgSQL (its extensible, ya know?) that can be loaded as a simple module (ala IPMeter) that gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors, but that doesn't require any changes to the physical backend to implement ... would you refuse their money? or would you do like PgSQL, Inc is doing, where we do a risk-analysis of the changes and work with the client to make use of the "competitive advantage" it gives them for a period of time prior to releasing it open source? Geoff explains it much better then I do, from a business perspective, but any extension/application that PgSQL, Inc develops for our clients has a life-span on it ... after which, keeping it in track with what is being developed would cost more then the competitive advantage it gives the clients ... sometimes, that is 0, some times, 6 months ... extreme cases, 24 months ... Nobody is going to pay you to develop X if you are going to turn around and give it for free to their competitor ... it makes no business. In alot of cases, making these changes benefits the project as some of the stuff that is required for them get integrated into the backend ...
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote: > > > > > IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc > > promising > > to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for > > confirmation > > that this is just a schedule slip and that the project is still going on > > and > > going to be released as open source. > > That would be me asking the question, as a reply to Don's concern regarding the 'prorietary extension on a 24 mo. release delay' > > What seems to be the answer is: "NO, we will keep the replication code > > proprietary". > > > > I have not seen this answer myself, but i've got this impression from > > the contents > > of the whole discussion. > > > > Do you know if this is the case ? > > If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas > himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his > part. Actually, Thomas said: Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It Thomas> is a big job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my Thomas> fault that you haven't seen the demo code released; I've been Thomas> packaging it to make it a bit easier to work with. I noted the use of the words "demo code" rather than "core code". That bothered (and still bothers) me, but I didn't reply at the time, since there was already enough heat in this thread. I'll take your interpretation to mean it's just a matter of semantics. > [...] Vadim did up the software days before the Oracle OpenWorld > conference, but it was a very rudimentary implementation. At the show, > Thomas dove in to build a basic interface to it, and, as time permits, has > been working on packaging to get it into contrib before v7.1 is released > ... > > I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where > someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this > ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-October, but it is/was > purely a scheduale slip ... > Mixture of the silent schedule slip on the core code, and the explicit statement on the erserver.com page regarding the 'proprietary extensions' with a delayed source release. The biggest problem I see with having core developers making proprietary extensions is the potentional for conflict of interest when and if some of us donate equivalent code to the core. The core developers who have also done proprietary versions will have to be very cautious when working on such code. They're in a bind, with two parts. First, they have obligations to their employer and their employer's partners to not release the closed work early. Second, possibly ignoring such independent extensions, or even actively excluding them for the core, in favor of their own code. The core developers _do_ have a bit of a track record favoring each others code over external code, as is natural: we all trust work more from sources we know better, especially when that source is ourselves. But this favoratism could work against the earliest possible open solution. I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication. Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling the approach may not be the one I was hoping for. Ross
> I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication.
> Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling
> the approach may not be the one I was hoping for.
There are no core patches required to support replication. This has been
said already, but perhaps lost in the noise.
- Thomas
I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer. I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a product had it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of. Making money? I don't know what they're plans are, but at some point I would fully expect *someone* to make money. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> To: "Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com> Cc: "mlw" <markw@mohawksoft.com>; "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@tm.ee>; "Thomas Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>; "Don Baccus" <dhogaza@pacifier.com>; "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote: > > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > > > ever you want. > > > > Thats a given. > > okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived > from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not > integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to > make it work ... > > ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from? > >
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the last 3 years what company that you know of didn't consider an IPO part of the "business and such". Most tech companies that have been formed in the last 4 - 5 years have one thing on the brain--IPO. It's the #1 thing (sadly) that they care about. I only wished these companies cared as much about *creating* and inovation more than they cared about going public... g. > No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start, > you'd have to say those people made "good money". >>I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price >>went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or 2 billion >>dollars year, which was kindof weird). >>-- >>Trond Eivind Glomsrød >>Red Hat, Inc.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > > If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas > > himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his > > part. > > Actually, Thomas said: > > Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It > Thomas> is a big job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my > Thomas> fault that you haven't seen the demo code released; I've been > Thomas> packaging it to make it a bit easier to work with. > > I noted the use of the words "demo code" rather than "core code". That > bothered (and still bothers) me, but I didn't reply at the time, > since there was already enough heat in this thread. I'll take your > interpretation to mean it's just a matter of semantics. there is nothing that we are developing at this date that is *core* code ... the "demo code" that we are going to be putting into contrib is a simplistic version, and the first cut, of what we are developing ... like everything in contrib, it will be hack-on-able, extendable, etc ... > I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support > replication. Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I > have a feeling the approach may not be the one I was hoping for. this is where the 'confusion' appears to be arising .. there are no *patches* ... anything that will require patches to the core server will almost have to be put to the open source or we hit problems where development continues without us ... what we are doing with replication requires *zero* patches to the server, it is purely a third-party application ...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
> I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a
> product had
> it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of.
So, basically, if I hadn't pulled together Thomas, Bruce and Vadim 5 years
ago, when Jolly and Andrew finished their graduate thesis, and continued
to provide the resources required to bring PgSQL from v1.06 to now, we
wouldn't be able to use that as a basis for third party applications
... pretty much, ya, that sums it up ...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org>
> To: "Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com>
> Cc: "mlw" <markw@mohawksoft.com>; "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@tm.ee>; "Thomas
> Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>; "Don Baccus"
> <dhogaza@pacifier.com>; "PostgreSQL Development"
> <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
>
>
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> >
> > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > > > ever you want.
> > >
> > > Thats a given.
> >
> > okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
> > from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not
> > integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to
> > make it work ...
> >
> > ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
> >
> >
>
>
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > > ever you want.
> >
> > Thats a given.
>
> okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
> from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not
> integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to
> make it work ...
>
> ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
This paragraph from erserver.com:
eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal functions that will enable individuals
andIT professionals to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical datawarehousing,
datamining,and eCommerce requirements. These initial developments will be published under the PostgreSQL Open
Source license, and made available through our sites, Certified Platinum Partners, and others in PostgreSQL
community.
led me (and many others) to believe that this was going to be a tighly
integrated service, requiring code in the PostgreSQL core, since that's the
normal use of 'core' around here.
Now that I know it's a completely external implementation, I feel bad about
griping about deadlines. I _do_ wish I'd known this _design choice_ a bit
earlier, as it impacts how I'll try to do some things with pgsql, but that's
my own fault for over interpreting press releases and pre-announcements.
Ross
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote: > > > > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from > > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what > > > > ever you want. > > > > > > Thats a given. > > > > okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived > > from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not > > integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to > > make it work ... > > > > ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from? > > This paragraph from erserver.com: > > eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal > functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals > to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical > datawarehousing, datamining, and eCommerce requirements. These > initial developments will be published under the PostgreSQL Open > Source license, and made available through our sites, Certified > Platinum Partners, and others in PostgreSQL community. > > led me (and many others) to believe that this was going to be a tighly > integrated service, requiring code in the PostgreSQL core, since that's the > normal use of 'core' around here. > > Now that I know it's a completely external implementation, I feel bad about > griping about deadlines. I _do_ wish I'd known this _design choice_ a bit > earlier, as it impacts how I'll try to do some things with pgsql, but that's > my own fault for over interpreting press releases and pre-announcements. Apologies from our side as well ... failings on the english language and choice of said on our side ... the last thing that we want to do is have to maintain patches across multiple versions for stuff that is core to the server ... Thomas/Vadim can easily correct me if I've missed something, but to the best of my knowledge, from our many discussions, anything that is *core* to the PgSQL server itself will always be released similar to any other project (namely, tested and open) ... including hooks for any proprietary projects ... the sanctity of the *core* server is *always* foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...
bingo.
Not just third-party app's, but think of all the vertical products that
include PG...
I'm right now wondering if TIVO uses it?
You have to think that PG will show up in some pretty interesting money
making products...
So yes, had you not got the ball rolling.... well, you know what I'm saying.
g.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: "Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com>
Cc: "mlw" <markw@mohawksoft.com>; "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@tm.ee>; "Thomas
Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>; "Don Baccus"
<dhogaza@pacifier.com>; "PostgreSQL Development"
<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > I'm agreeing with the people like SePICK and erServer.
> > I'm only being sort of cheeky in saying that they wouldn't have had a
> > product had
> > it not been for the Open Source that they are leveraging off of.
>
> So, basically, if I hadn't pulled together Thomas, Bruce and Vadim 5 years
> ago, when Jolly and Andrew finished their graduate thesis, and continued
> to provide the resources required to bring PgSQL from v1.06 to now, we
> wouldn't be able to use that as a basis for third party applications
> ... pretty much, ya, that sums it up ...
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org>
> > To: "Gary MacDougall" <gary@freeportweb.com>
> > Cc: "mlw" <markw@mohawksoft.com>; "Hannu Krosing" <hannu@tm.ee>; "Thomas
> > Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>; "Don Baccus"
> > <dhogaza@pacifier.com>; "PostgreSQL Development"
> > <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
> >
> >
> > > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > >
> > > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do
what
> > > > > ever you want.
> > > >
> > > > Thats a given.
> > >
> > > okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
> > > from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are
not
> > > integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order
to
> > > make it work ...
> > >
> > > ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick:
Scrappy
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary:
scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
At 01:06 PM 12/3/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Open source software is a >privilege, I admit that I don't subscribe to Stallman's "source to software is a right" argument. That's far off my reality map. > and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible" >because they want to get paid for their work and don't choose to give away >their code. However, I do have the right to make such statements, just as you have the right to disagree. It's called the first amendment in my country. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > the sanctity of the *core* server is *always* >foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ... What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your company? The problem in taking itty-bitty steps in this direction is that you're involving outside money interests that don't necessarily adhere to this view. Having taken the first steps to a proprietary, closed source future, would you pledge to bankrupt your company rather than accept a large captital investment with an ROI based on proprietary extensions to the core that might not be likely to come out of the non-tainted side of the development house? Would your company sign a contract to that effect with independent parties, i.e. that it would never violate the sanctity of the *core*? Even if it means you go broke? And that your investors go broke? Or would your investors prefer you not make such a formal committment, in order to keep options open if things don't go well? (in the early 80's my company received a total of $8,000,000 in pre-IPO capital investments, so I have some experience with the expectations of investors. It tends to make me a bit paranoid. I'm not the only COO to have such experiences while living the life). What happens in two years if those investors in eRServer haven't gotten adequate return on their investment? Do you have a formal agreement that the source will be released regardless? Can the community inspect the agreement so we can judge for ourselves whether or not this assurance is adequately backed by contract language? Are your agreements Open Source? :) - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
At 09:42 PM 12/3/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: >This paragraph from erserver.com: > > eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal > functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals > to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical > datawarehousing, datamining, and eCommerce requirements. These > initial developments will be published under the PostgreSQL Open > Source license, and made available through our sites, Certified > Platinum Partners, and others in PostgreSQL community. > >led me (and many others) to believe that this was going to be a tighly >integrated service, requiring code in the PostgreSQL core, since that's the >normal use of 'core' around here. Right. This is a big source of misunderstanding. There's still the fact that 50% of the PG steering committee that are involved in [partially] closed source development based on PG, though. This figure disturbs me. 50% is a lot. It's like ... half, right? Or did I miss something in the conversion? This represents significant change from the past where 0%, AFAIK, were involved in closed source PG add-ons. >Now that I know it's a completely external implementation, I feel bad about >griping about deadlines. I _do_ wish I'd known this _design choice_ a bit >earlier, as it impacts how I'll try to do some things with pgsql, but that's >my own fault for over interpreting press releases and pre-announcements. IF 50% of the steering committee is to embark on such a task in a closed source or semi-closed source development model, it would seem common courtesy to inform the community of the facts as early as they were decided upon. In fact, it might seem to be common courtesy to float the notion in the community, to gauge reaction and to build support, before finalizing such a decision. AFAIC this arrived out of no where, a sort of stealth "50% of the steering committee has decided to embark on a semi-proprietary solution to the replication problem that you won't see as open source for [up to] two years after its completion". That's a paradigm shift. Whether right or wrong, there's a responsibility to communicate the fact that 50% of the steering committee has decided to partially abandon the open source development model for one that is (in some cases) closed for two years and (in other cases) forever. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
At 07:11 AM 12/4/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: >We are offering our services and expertise to a community outside >-hackers, as a business formed in a way that this new community expects >to see. Nothing special or sinister here. Other than it seems to have >raised the point that you expected each of us to be working for you, >gratis, on projects you find compelling, using all of our available >time, far into the future just as each of us has over the last five >years. No, not at all. Working gratis is not the issue, as I made clear. There are - despite your rather condescending statement implying otherwise - business models that lead to revenue without abandoning open source. I'm making a decent living following such a business model, thank you very much. I'm living proof that it is possible. ... >A recent example of non-sinister change in another area is the work done >to release 7.0.3. This is a release which would not have happened in >previous cycles, since we are so close to beta on 7.1. But GB paid Tom >Lane to work on it as part of *their* business plan, and he sheparded it >through the cycle. There was no outcry from you at this presumption, and >on this diversion of community resources for this effort. Not sure why, >other than you chose to pick some other fight. There's a vast difference between releasing 7.0.3 in open source form TODAY and eRServer, which may not be released in open source form for up to two years after it enters the market on a closed source, proprietary footing. To suggest there is no difference, as you seem to be doing, is a hopelessly unconvincing argument. The fact that you seem blind to the difference is one reason why PG, Inc worries me (since you are a principle in the company). The reason you heard no outcry from me in the PG 7.0.3 case is because there *is* a difference between it and a semi-proprietary product like eRServer. If GB had held Tom's work on PG 7.0.3 and released it only in (say) a packaged release for purchase, saying "we'll release it to the CVS tree after we recoup our investment", there would've been an outcry from me, bet on it. Probably others, too... >And no matter which fight you chose, you're wasting the time of others >as you fight your demons. Well, I guess I'll have to stay off my medication, otherwise my demons might disappear. I'm a regular miracle of medical science until I forget to take them. - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
> In fact, it might seem to be common courtesy...
An odd choice of words coming from you Don.
We are offering our services and expertise to a community outside
-hackers, as a business formed in a way that this new community expects
to see. Nothing special or sinister here. Other than it seems to have
raised the point that you expected each of us to be working for you,
gratis, on projects you find compelling, using all of our available
time, far into the future just as each of us has over the last five
years.
After your recent spewing, it irks me a little to admit that this will
not change, and that we are likely to continue to each work on OS
PostgreSQL projects using all of our available time, just as we have in
the past.
A recent example of non-sinister change in another area is the work done
to release 7.0.3. This is a release which would not have happened in
previous cycles, since we are so close to beta on 7.1. But GB paid Tom
Lane to work on it as part of *their* business plan, and he sheparded it
through the cycle. There was no outcry from you at this presumption, and
on this diversion of community resources for this effort. Not sure why,
other than you chose to pick some other fight.
And no matter which fight you chose, you're wasting the time of others
as you fight your demons.
- Thomas
Horst Herb wrote: > > > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. > Figuring > > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > features. And building a _product_. > Oops. You didn't really mean that, did you? Could it be that there are some > people out there thinking "let them free software fools do the hard initial > work, once things are working nicely, we take over, add a few "secret" > ingredients, and voila - the commercial product has been created? That wasn't the _intended_ meaning, but I suppose that it's a related issue. I was referring to companies expending variable amounts of time and resources on a new closed source technology, only to have their marketshare shriveled up by OSS coders rapidly duplicating their efforts, and releasing free code or a less expensive product. To put it in proper context: If the project under discussion was reverse engineered (or even clean room "re-engineered") and released as a separate, open source, product (or even just "free" code), the demand for the PG, Inc. software is placed at risk. The actual size, and scope, of the project is irrelevant, as determined OSS advocates have pretty much taken on any, and every, viable project. It's not really about "stealing" code efforts, anymore than RedHat "stole" linux, or that Pg has been stealing features from other ORDBMS's... it's that OSS is a difficult market to capture, if you are selling closed source code that can be created, or duplicated, by others. Stronghold and Raven(?) were more sucessful products before the OSS encryption efforts took off. Now anybody can build an SSL server, without paying for licenses that used to cost thousands (I know there's the RSA issue in this history as well, but let's be realistic about who actually obeyed all those laws, okay?). Zend is trying to build an IDE for PHP, but the open-source market moves fast enough that within a few months of release, there will be clones, reverse engineered versions, etc. SSH tried valiantly to close their code base.... which created a market for OpenSSH. You see it time and again, there's a closed version/extension/plug-in, feature, and an OSS clone gets built up for it. GUI for sendmail? OSS now. New AIM protocols? gaim was on it in days. New, proprietary, M$ mail software that took years to build up, research, and develop? Give the OSS hordes a few months. New, closed, SMB protocols? Give the samba team a few days, maybe a few weeks. To wrap up this point, a closed derivative (or closed new) product is now competing against OSS pools of developers, which is much harder to stop than a single closed source company. It's difficult to compete on code quality, or code features.... you have to compete with a *product* that is bettter than anything globally co-ordinated code hackers can build themselves. -Bop -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in MacOS land. Your bopping may vary.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > the sanctity of the *core* server is *always* > >foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ... > > What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your > company? The problem in taking itty-bitty steps in this direction is > that you're involving outside money interests that don't necessarily > adhere to this view. > > Having taken the first steps to a proprietary, closed source future, > would you pledge to bankrupt your company rather than accept a large > captital investment with an ROI based on proprietary extensions to the > core that might not be likely to come out of the non-tainted side of > the development house? You mean sort of like Great Bridge investing in core developers? Quite frankly, I have yet to see anything but good come out of Tom as a result of that, as now he has more time on his hands ... then again, maybe Outer Joins was a bad idea? *raised eyebrow* PgSQL is *open source* ... that means that if you don't like it, take the code, fork off your own version if you don't like what's happening to the current tree and build your own community *shrug*
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: > >A recent example of non-sinister change in another area is the work done > >to release 7.0.3. This is a release which would not have happened in > >previous cycles, since we are so close to beta on 7.1. But GB paid Tom > >Lane to work on it as part of *their* business plan, and he sheparded it > >through the cycle. There was no outcry from you at this presumption, and > >on this diversion of community resources for this effort. Not sure why, > >other than you chose to pick some other fight. > > There's a vast difference between releasing 7.0.3 in open source form > TODAY and eRServer, which may not be released in open source form for > up to two years after it enters the market on a closed source, > proprietary footing. To suggest there is no difference, as you seem to > be doing, is a hopelessly unconvincing argument. Except, eRServer, the basic model, will be released Open Source, and, if all goes as planned, in time for inclusion in contrib of v7.1 ...
Can we PLEASE kill this thread? There are only a handful of people who are making contributions here and nothing really new is being said. I agree that the issue should be discussed, but this does not seem like the right forum. Thanks. - brandon b. palmer, bpalmer@crimelabs.net pgp: www.crimelabs.net/bpalmer.pgp5
> This paragraph from erserver.com:
> eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal
> functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals
> to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical
> datawarehousing, datamining, and eCommerce requirements. These
> initial developments will be published under the PostgreSQL Open
> Source license, and made available through our sites, Certified
> Platinum Partners, and others in PostgreSQL community.
> led me (and many others) to believe that this was going to be a tighly
> integrated service, requiring code in the PostgreSQL core, since that's the
> normal use of 'core' around here.
"Around here" isn't "around there" ;)
As you can see, "core" == "fundamental" in the general sense, in a
statement not written specifically for the hacker community but for the
world at large. In many cases, taking one syllable rather than four is a
good thing, but sorry it led to confusion.
My schedule is completely out of whack, partly from taking the afternoon
off to cool down from the personal attacks being lobbed my direction.
Will pick things up as time permits, but we should have some code for
contrib/ in time for beta2, if it is acceptable to the community to put
it in there.
- Thomas
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 05:29:36AM +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > As you can see, "core" == "fundamental" in the general sense, in a > statement not written specifically for the hacker community but for the > world at large. In many cases, taking one syllable rather than four is a > good thing, but sorry it led to confusion. Yep, a closer re-read led me to enlightenment. > > My schedule is completely out of whack, partly from taking the afternoon > off to cool down from the personal attacks being lobbed my direction. I'm sorry about that. I hope the part of this thread that I helped start didn't contribute too much to your distress. Had I realized at the time that there was _no_ pgsql core work involved, I would have been less distressed myself by the time slip. With beta on the way, I was concerned that it wouldn't get in until the 7.2 tree opened. > > Will pick things up as time permits, but we should have some code for > contrib/ in time for beta2, if it is acceptable to the community to put > it in there. > I'm of the 'contrib is for stuff that doesn't even necessarily currently build' school, although I appreciate the work that's been done to reverse the bit rot. Drop it in at any time, as far as I'm concerned. Ross
On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc > > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After > > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would > > allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. > > > > It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. > > > > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? > > I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related > to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: > > 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5 > > 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com, > not by PG, Inc. Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the BSD? PG inc would still be able to do there money giving support (just like IBM, HP and Compaq are doing there share with Linux), without been able to close the code. Only a thought... Saludos... :-) -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 03 December 2000 12:41, mlw wrote: > Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let > > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be > > a few flaws... ;) > > While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have > contributed to other environments. The prospect that I could create a > piece of code, spend weeks/years of my own time on something and some > entity can come along, take what I've written and create a product which > is better for it, and then not share back is offensive. Under GPL it is > illegal. (Postgres should try to move to GPL) With you on the last statemente. > I am working on a full-text search engine for Postgres. A really fast > one, something better than anything else out there. It combines the > power and scalability of a web search engine, with the data-mining > capabilities of SQL. If you want to make something GPL I would be more then interested to help you. We could use something like that over here, and I have no problem at all with releasing it as GPL code. > If I write this extension to Postgres, and release it, is it right that > a business can come along, add a few things here and there and introduce > a new closed source product on what I have written? That is certainly > not what I intend. My intention was to honor the people before me for > providing the rich environment which is Postgres. I have made real money > using Postgres in a work environment. The time I would give back more > than covers MSSQL/Oracle licenses. I'm not sure, but you could introduce a peice of GPL code in the BSD code, but the result would have to be GPL. Hoping to hear from you, -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mart�n Marqu�s email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 03 December 2000 21:49, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where > someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this I have missed that part as well. > ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-October, but it is/was > purely a scheduale slip ... I would never say something about schedules of OSS. Let it be in BSD or GPL license. Saludos... :-) -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mart�n Marqu�s email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 05 December 2000 16:23, Martin A. Marques wrote: > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the > BSD? PG inc would still be able to do there money giving support (just like > IBM, HP and Compaq are doing there share with Linux), without been able to > close the code. I shouldn't be answering myself, but I just got to the end of the thread (exams got on me the last 2 days), so I want to apologize for sending this mail (even if it reflects what my feelings are) without reading the other mails in the thread. Sorry -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Martin A. Marques wrote: > On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote: > > > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc > > > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After > > > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would > > > allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. > > > > > > It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. > > > > > > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? > > > > I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related > > to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: > > > > 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5 > > > > 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com, > > not by PG, Inc. > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the BSD? its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions, GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times, and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a non-discussable issue" ...
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions, > GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times, > and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a > non-discussable issue" ... I've declined commenting on this thread until now -- but this statement bears amplification. GPL is NOT the be-all end-all Free Software (in the FSF/GNU sense!) license. There is room for more than one license -- just as there is room for more than one OS, more than one Unix, more than one Free RDBMS, more than one Free webserver, more than one scripting language, more than one compiler system, more than one Linux distribution, more than one BSD, and more than one CPU architecture. Why make a square peg development group fit a round peg license? :-) Use a round peg for round holes, and a square peg for square holes. Choice of license for PostgreSQL is not negotiable. I don't say that as an edict from Lamar Owen (after all, I am in no position to edict anything :-)) -- I say that as a studied observation of the last times this subject has come up. I personally prefer GPL. But my personal preference and what is good for the project are two different things. BSD is good for this project with this group of developers -- and it should not change. And, like any other open development effort, there will be missteps -- which missteps should, IMHO, be put behind us. No software is perfect; no development team is, either. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial source code release would have to be somehow honored.. I'm just wondering if the PG team could change the license even if they wanted to.. I should go read the license again, I know the answer to the above is in there but it's been a long time since I've looked it over and I'm in the middle of packing, so I haven't got the time right now.. Thanks to anyone for satisfying my curiosity in answering this question. I think that it's very, very good if the license is indeed untouchable, it keeps PostgreSQL from becoming totally closed-source and/or totally commercial.. Obviously things can be added to PG and sold commercially, but there will always be the base PostgreSQL out there for everyone...... I hope. Just my $0.02 worth.. -Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lamar Owen" <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> To: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions, > > GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times, > > and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a > > non-discussable issue" ... > > I've declined commenting on this thread until now -- but this statement > bears amplification. > > GPL is NOT the be-all end-all Free Software (in the FSF/GNU sense!) > license. There is room for more than one license -- just as there is > room for more than one OS, more than one Unix, more than one Free RDBMS, > more than one Free webserver, more than one scripting language, more > than one compiler system, more than one Linux distribution, more than > one BSD, and more than one CPU architecture. > > Why make a square peg development group fit a round peg license? :-) > Use a round peg for round holes, and a square peg for square holes. > > Choice of license for PostgreSQL is not negotiable. I don't say that as > an edict from Lamar Owen (after all, I am in no position to edict > anything :-)) -- I say that as a studied observation of the last times > this subject has come up. > > I personally prefer GPL. But my personal preference and what is good > for the project are two different things. BSD is good for this project > with this group of developers -- and it should not change. > > And, like any other open development effort, there will be missteps -- > which missteps should, IMHO, be put behind us. No software is perfect; > no development team is, either. > -- > Lamar Owen > WGCR Internet Radio > 1 Peter 4:11 >
On Tuesday 05 December 2000 18:03, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the > > BSD? > > its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions, > GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times, > and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a > non-discussable issue" ... It's pretty clear to me, and I respect the decision (I really do). -- "And I'm happy, because you make me feel good, about me." - Melvin Udall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mart�n Marqu�s email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Vincent wrote: > > Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I > mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and > I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial source > code release would have to be somehow honored.. I'm just wondering if the PG > team could change the license even if they wanted to.. I should go read the > license again, I know the answer to the above is in there but it's been a _Every_single_ copyright holder of code in the core server would have to agree to any change. Not a likely event. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > Mitch Vincent wrote: > > > > Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I > > mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and > > I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial source > > code release would have to be somehow honored.. I'm just wondering if the PG > > team could change the license even if they wanted to.. I should go read the > > license again, I know the answer to the above is in there but it's been a > > _Every_single_ copyright holder of code in the core server would have to > agree to any change. No - GPL projects can include BSD-copyrighted code, no problem there. That being said, creating bad blood is not a good thing, so an approach like this would hurt PostgreSQL a lot. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
"Martin A. Marques" wrote: > > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the BSD? It is somewhat difficult to put other peoples code under some different license. And AFAIK (IANAL) the old license would still apply too for all the code that has been released under it. > PG inc would still be able to do there money giving support (just like IBM, > HP and Compaq are doing there share with Linux), without been able to close > the code. PG inc would also be able to make money selling dairy products (as they seem to employ some smart people and smart peole, if in need, are usually able to make the money they need). But I suspect that the farther away from developing postgres(-related) products they have to look for making a living, the worse the results are for PostgreSQL. > Only a thought... You can always license _your_ contributions under whatever license you choose - GPL, LGPL,MPL, SCL or even a shrink-wrap, open-the-wrap-before-reading license that demands users to forfeit their firstborn child for even looking at the product. From what I have read on this list (I guess) it may be unsafe for you to release something in public domain (in US at least), as you are then unable to claim yourself not liable for your users' blunders (akin to leaving a loaded gun on a parkbench) ---------- Hannu
Trond Eivind GlomsrØd wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > Mitch Vincent wrote: > > > code release would have to be somehow honored.. I'm just wondering if the PG > > > team could change the license even if they wanted to.. I should go read the > > _Every_single_ copyright holder of code in the core server would have to > > agree to any change. > No - GPL projects can include BSD-copyrighted code, no problem > there. That being said, creating bad blood is not a good thing, so an > approach like this would hurt PostgreSQL a lot. Well, in actuality, the original code from PostgreSQL would still be BSD-licensed and would be immune to infection from the GPL 'virus'. See rms' comments on the Vista software package -- that package is public domain, and the original code will always be public domain. To get the 'original' code relicensed would require the consent of every developer. Of course, the BSD license allows redistribution under virtually any license -- but said redistribution doesn't affect the original in any way. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 PS: is there a difference in the 'Ø' you used in your e-mail this time and the 'ø' that used to be present? I'm ignorant of that letter's usage.