Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable? - Mailing list pgsql-general

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
> consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...
>
> Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens?
>
> The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
>
> "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
>
> Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?

    The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
    pull out things again. To stay with me as example, what would
    happen  if  I  take out PL/pgSQL, FOREIGN KEY (not all mine I
    know), the fixes to the rewriter and so on.  They  all  where
    contributed  under  the  old  license,  so  I  still hold the
    copyright on 'em - don't I.  Can a  new  license  change  the
    legal state of previous contributions? I don't think so. What
    do we have to do to reversely apply this  "irrevocable"  term
    to all so far done contributions?

    And  some  words  to  all the people who think GPL is better.
    IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing  everything
    that  uses  a  little  snippet  of  open  code to be open too
    doesn't have anything to do with free software.  There are  a
    couple  of  things Open Source can never offer. For example a
    native  DB-link  interface  between  a  Postgres  DB  and   a
    commercial  one  might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
    useful thing that must be a closed source  product,  so  what
    would it be good for to make it's development impossible?

    If  someone  needs a feature and is willing to pay alot money
    to get  it  right  now,  why  shouldn't  a  company  or  some
    individual  grab it and implement the feature. At some point,
    those will learn that it is a good idea to  contribute  these
    things  to  the  free  source too, because they'll get rid of
    most maintainence efford and gain that future development  on
    our  side  doesn't collide with what they're responsible for.
    It's so obvious to me  that  I  don't  need  a  license  that
    enforces it from the very first second.


Jan

--

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