Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

"Marc G. Fournier"  writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>> The whole thing is too wordy.
>> 
>> Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
>> restrictions imposed by the GPL.  The PostgreSQL project always has
>> and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.

> This one is perfect ... Bruce?  I really leaves no openings, no?

I like it too.  Short & sweet.

Can we go back to work now? ;-)

			regards, tom lane

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Not in this life time, but thanks for adding your 2 bits ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, alavoor wrote:

> Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
> release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.
>
> The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
> but by law it is required to include it forever with
> pgsql.
>
> I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
> code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
> under GNU/GPL.
>
> Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
> products.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>

PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.

The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
but by law it is required to include it forever with
pgsql. 

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

[2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:
 
| At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
 
| However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
| would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete.  What
| do people think of this summary:

| The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
| (proprietary) restrictions.  

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage 
in license war.  I'd suggest something like the following (as long 
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

   The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
   license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that 
   the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL 
   developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that 
   might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute 
   or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the 
   need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we 
   will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

cheers.
  brent

-- 
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are 
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:

| Perhaps something like this:
| 
|    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
|    since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
|    Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
|    GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
|    concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
|    contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
|    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
|    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
|    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
|    restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
|    BSD license for the foreseeable future.

+1

cheers.
  brent

-- 
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are 
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman

Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

mlw wrote:
> alavoor wrote:
> > 
> > Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
> > release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.
> > 
> > The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
> > but by law it is required to include it forever with
> > pgsql.
> > 
> > I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
> > code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
> > under GNU/GPL.
> > 
> > Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
> > products.
> 
> Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your
> views.

At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
license, which I don' think is true.  We could add GPL on top of the BSD
license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.  However all future
submitters would have to agree to GPL for their new code.

However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete.  What
do people think of this summary:

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

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. 
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

mlw wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> > The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> > (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> > need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> > license for the for-seeable future.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^

It is actually spelled "foreseeable".

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

> This is really good as far as it goes.  I'd also like to see the
> point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> Perhaps something like this:
> 
>    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
>    since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
>    Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
>    GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
>    concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
>    contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
>    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
>    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
>    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
>    restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
>    BSD license for the foreseeable future.

Man, this text is getting longer.  :-(

Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Now, I don't want to do that, but I do think it is doable.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> license for the for-seeable future.

GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
you wish" ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...


On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:

> [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:
>
> | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
>
> | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
> | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete.  What
> | do people think of this summary:
>
> | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> | (proprietary) restrictions.
>
> Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> in license war.  I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
>
>    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
>    license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that
>    the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL
>    developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
>    might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
>    or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
>    need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we
>    will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> cheers.
>   brent
>
> --
> "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > This is really good as far as it goes.  I'd also like to see the
> > point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> > to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> > Perhaps something like this:
> >
> >    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> >    since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> >    Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> >    GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
> >    concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> >    contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
> >    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> >    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> >    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> >    restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
> >    BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> Man, this text is getting longer.  :-(
>
> Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

If someone wanted to fork and call it a new name, ya, its doable ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > > Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
> > > of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> > > _without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
> > > part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> > > cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
> > > basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
> >
> > Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
> > past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
> > we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code.  The GPL does
> > not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise.  See
> >
> >      b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >      whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >      part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >      parties under the terms of this License.
> >              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.
> >
> > But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
> > discussion.  Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
> > future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
> > give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
> > Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?
>
> I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
> we don't want GPL.

Ya, but with your wording, you are suggesting that that desire may change
in the future ...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> > >    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> > >    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> >
> > This could easily be interpreted as flamebait.  It doesn't
> > limit contribution at all.  What's wrong with:
> >
> > 	The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
> > 	wish to impose upon our users and developers.
> >
> > Why just "commercial entities"?
>
> Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
> more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense.  The more
> detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
> possibility for problems.
>
> One clarification.  We could not put the GPL on top of our current
> license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
> Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
> I don't want to do it, but there it is.
>
> An updated version of my short text is below.  I removed the mention of
> "current" and "similar".  I also strengthened the last sentence.  That
> last sentence could also be removed completely.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> change it.

This one is nice and short and to the point ... I like :)

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
>
> The whole thing is too wordy.
>
> Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
> restrictions imposed by the GPL.  The PostgreSQL project always has
> and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.

This one is perfect ... Bruce?  I really leaves no openings, no?


>
> It's an FAQ entry, not an exercise for a law student.
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:
> >
> > > [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:
> > >
> > > | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
> > >
> > > | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
> > > | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete.  What
> > > | do people think of this summary:
> > >
> > > | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> > > | (proprietary) restrictions.
> > >
> > > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> > > in license war.  I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> > > as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
> > >
> > >    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> > >    license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that
> > >    the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL
> > >    developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> > >    might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> > >    or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> > >    need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we
> > >    will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
> > >
> > > cheers.
> > >   brent
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> > > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> > > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> > >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
>
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
>          56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
>         Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
>        Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
>

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
> > of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> > _without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
> > part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> > cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
> > basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
> 
> Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
> past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
> we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code.  The GPL does
> not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise.  See
>      
>      b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>      whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>      part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      parties under the terms of this License.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.
> 
> But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
> discussion.  Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
> future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
> give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
> Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
we don't want GPL.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> >    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> >    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> >    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> 
> This could easily be interpreted as flamebait.  It doesn't
> limit contribution at all.  What's wrong with:
> 
> 	The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
> 	wish to impose upon our users and developers.
> 
> Why just "commercial entities"?

Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense.  The more
detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
possibility for problems.

One clarification.  We could not put the GPL on top of our current
license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
I don't want to do it, but there it is.

An updated version of my short text is below.  I removed the mention of
"current" and "similar".  I also strengthened the last sentence.  That
last sentence could also be removed completely.

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

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
> > (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> > need for such restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> > change it.
> 
> Ok, how about :
> 
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
> GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
> (proprietary) restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> change it.

OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

> > > Ok, how about :
> > >
> > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
> > > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
> > > (proprietary) restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> > > change it.
> 
> I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than
> flame-bait.  BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um...  how's this
> :
> 
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
> GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed source" (proprietary)
> restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.

I know this is a pain but I think it is worth getting this down so we
have something concrete to point to when people ask.  Actually, it is
going much quicker and smoother than I thought.

How about this?  I have removed "questionable": (This is getting shorter
each time.)

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

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> > The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> > (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> > need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> > license for the for-seeable future.
>
> GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
> you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
> you wish" ...

    Yupp,  it's kinda "I am the only truth and you shall not have
    any other licenses ...", IMHO a little selfish.


Jan

--

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



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Hello, alavoor!

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:03:41PM -0800, you wrote:

> Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
> products.
And first case MySQL vs Gemini will show up it's unusability in real
world.

-- 
NEVE-RIPE

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
> the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
> license, which I don' think is true.  We could add GPL on top of the BSD
> license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
> PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.

I doubt this is true at all.  We could possibly specify GPL for *new*
code (eg, whole new source files) that we add to the tree, but we can't
unilaterally relicense the existing code.  And can you usefully specify
a GPL license for individual patches added to a basically-BSD source file?
Isn't going to work.

In any case, the discussion has been had many times before and the
answer is not going to change.  I like your idea of putting something in
the FAQ to try to stave off future queries.  The wording you have is
okay as far as it goes, but I'd like to see it made perfectly crystal
clear that we *have* considered GPL and we are *not* interested in
hearing any more "why don't you switch to GPL" proposals.  Deleting the
"currently" would be a start.

> We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. 
> The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> license for the for-seeable future.

			regards, tom lane

Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

...
> Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

I agree that this is possible. I'd prefer not making a statement in the
FAQ regarding license justifications/alternatives at this time, because
it could be a long discussion with little gain.

Please note the source of this most recent unsolicited suggestion with
unsubstantiated reasoning and we will conclude that we have already
spent too much time on the subject for this go 'round. imho of course ;)

                      - Thomas

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Brent Verner wrote:
> 
> [2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:
> 
> | Perhaps something like this:
> |
> |    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> |    since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> |    Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> |    GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
> |    concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> |    contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
> |    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> |    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> |    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> |    restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
> |    BSD license for the foreseeable future.
> 
> +1

Yep, lets go with this version.

+ Justin

> 
> cheers.
>   brent
> 
> --
> "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> 
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> change it.

Ok, how about :

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti "closed source"
(proprietary) restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

That has got to be about as plain and non-offensive as possible.

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
> http://archives.postgresql.org

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Justin Clift wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> > > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
> > > (proprietary) restrictions.  Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> > > need for such restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> > > change it.
> >
> > Ok, how about :
> >
> > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
> > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
> > (proprietary) restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to
> > change it.

I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than
flame-bait.  BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um...  how's this
:

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.  While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions.  We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.

***

I find it amazing I'm even concerned about this when I should be
sleeping.  :)

'nite

+ Justin

> OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added.
> 
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Brent Verner  writes:
> > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> > in license war.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> > I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> > as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
> 
> >    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> >    license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that
> >    the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL
> >    developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> >    might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> >    or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> >    need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we
> >    will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
> 
> This is really good as far as it goes.  I'd also like to see the
> point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> Perhaps something like this:
> 
>    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
>    since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
>    Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
>    GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
>    concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
>    contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
>    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
>    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           
In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"?  Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."?  (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).

It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Don Baccus wrote:
> 
> Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> 
> > In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
> > "adversely affects the willingness"?  Or "discourages commercial
> > entities from contributing..."?  (Though the latter is actually a bit
> > too strong for my liking).
> 
> Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
> the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
> to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.
> 
> Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD.  IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.
> 
> Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the
> fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial
> investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to
> reflect reality.

I think that has more to do with the fact that there is more visibility
with Linux. While the BSD license was still tied up in confusion over
who owned what (AT&T vs Berkeley) people started to contribute to GNU.
Linux seemed to be the first project with both. I don't think the
commercial word cared if it was a FREE-BSD OS or FREE-GNU OS license,
just that it was free and Linux seems to be (as far as features go),
BSD + more.

The GNU license discourages vertical application vendors from
contributing as they have to give away the source and expertise.

I have no problem with free source code. I do have a problem
of having to implement some source code that belongs to a customer
and they consider their database part of their competitive advantage.
By having to give away the source, they tell their competitors
how to export from their database. This does discourage commercial
work where the database and how you access it is confidential.

One advantage of PostgreSQL is that you can use it for your
customers - and THEY own the paid for source code.

The BSD license does not keep them from contributing, but it allows
them not have to when they can't give it away. GPL is great for
some things, but not for databases.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

"Keith G. Murphy" wrote:
> 
> 
> It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...
> 
I see further down in the thread (which looks like another thread to my
somewhat-broken mailreader), that the offending wording had already been
removed/changed.

I seem to have provoked an off-topic discussion (but not the flamewar I
dreaded).  Sorry I hadn't looked ahead and preempted it.

But I'm glad that the inflammatory wording is gone.

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Brent Verner  writes:
> Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage 
> in license war.

Good point.

> I'd suggest something like the following (as long 
> as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

>    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
>    license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that 
>    the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL 
>    developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that 
>    might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute 
>    or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the 
>    need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we 
>    will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

This is really good as far as it goes.  I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

   The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
   since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
   Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
   GPL.  This is not very practical because it would require the
   concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
   contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net.  Furthermore,
   many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
   would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
   continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
   restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
   BSD license for the foreseeable future.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> Anyway, let's look at it this way.  If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors.  We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree.  It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code.  The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise.  See
     
     b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     parties under the terms of this License.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion.  Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

			regards, tom lane

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

>
> I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...

The whole thing is too wordy.

Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
restrictions imposed by the GPL.  The PostgreSQL project always has
and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.

It's an FAQ entry, not an exercise for a law student.

>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:
>
> > [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:
> >
> > | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this.  First, in
> >
> > | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
> > | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete.  What
> > | do people think of this summary:
> >
> > | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> > | (proprietary) restrictions.
> >
> > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> > in license war.  I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> > as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
> >
> >    The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> >    license since its inception.  Occasionally, users request that
> >    the project be relicensed under the GPL.  Many PostgreSQL
> >    developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> >    might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> >    or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> >    need for such restrictions.  In light of these concerns, we
> >    will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > cheers.
> >   brent
> >
> > --
> > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing."  -- Duane Allman
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>


Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Tom Lane writes:

[...]
>    many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
>    would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
>    continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
>    restrictions.  In light of these issues, we will continue with the
>    BSD license for the foreseeable future.

If that is actually true, then "many PostgreSQL developers" are completely
missing the point.  (Or possibly the commercial entities are missing the
point.)

If commercial entity A writes code C, then A owns the copyright on C and A
can relicense C in any way they want.  In particular A can contribute C to
a "community" GPL code base and can sell C in a closed-source product at
the same time.

For commercial entities, the main difference between a BSD license and the
GPL is that they can add their own code and sell the result closed-source
*without* having to effectively contribute it to the community sources.
But in that case they're not actually "contributing", as you write, and
the open project could care less.

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason:  It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it.  We don't.  We give
away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL