Re: PostgreSQL & the BSD License - Mailing list pgsql-general

>I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is
>flawed" argument?  The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright
>ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF
>CALIFORNIA" ... all that is being proposed *at this time* is to add in
>coverage for the period *since* '96 and extend that coverage to
>include *all* developers, not just the Univesrity of California ...
>
Plus the language about USE IN TRADE, LOSS OF ENJOYMENT, INFRINGEMENT, etc.
This make three categories of changes: 1) extent the term to 2000, 2) cover
all developers, 3) cover more types of possible liability.

I agree with and understand your concern about terming the current BSD
license "flawed".  That term should certainly not be associated with the
objective and spirit of the BSD license - and the BSD license itsself has
met those objectives for many years.  How about the license needs to be
"updated?"

>Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
>still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
>developers ...
>
>If ppl feel that neither a) or b) above aren't considered flaws, then let
>us leave well enough alone ...
>
>The wording in the 'DEVELOPERS' section of what I sent out last night is a
>little more verbose, so we could cut it down to be exactly the same as the
>BSD one, and 'trim the fat' ... so that all we are "changing" is
>"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" to "DEVELOPERS", and leaving the rest of the
>wording completely intact ... ?
>
>My personal feeling is that if the BSD license itself was so flawed, there
>are at least another dozen projects out there that deal with commercial
>enterprises on a larger scale then we do that would have done changes also
>... I don't want to change the wording, I would just like to see it
>extended to cover the ppl that are actually doing development and not just
>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ...
>
>make sense?  or are we just sitting here discussing changes to a license
>that doesn't need changing?
>

Well, I agree that logically the license *does* need to be "updated" and it
might make sense to update the types of liabilities and other parts of the
license also.

This is probably best done in stages, first notifying other BSD projects
that PostgreSQL will update the BSD license (on July xx) by extending
coverage to all developers and extending the term of coverage to 2000, and
inviting them to do the same. (It only makes sense for them to do likewise)
Some might choose to cover "contributors" instead of "developers" or other
minor changes but I would think that such a limited and straightforward
changes could still qualify as a "BSD license"

At the same time, postgresql could contact people from other major BSD
projects asking them to review the language that covers additional potential
liabilities.  This review should be made know to all BSD projects with some
letter or email explaining that any ultimate or proposed changes would be as
conservative as possible and that a draft will be made avaialable on xxxxx
date for public review.  The major BSD projects should be committed to
adopting whatever results from this process as the "BSD license" or
"revised/updated BSD license standard" or what have you so that there is no
backtracking, forking, or just plain waste of people's time and resources.

Obviously this should all be done in the most practical and efficient
possible way.  A working committee of a few people from different major
projects who collect info and set deadlines/milestones might need to be
formed.  In the end, it may be that everyone decides that change is
unnecessary, or too problematic, but everyone will know that the issues have
been properly addressed and that all opinions have been heard and
considered.

I know that this seems like more trouble than it should be, and that the
license issue seems to balloon into an unmanageable beast, but IMO, it
really needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way for all but the most
minor or perfunctual changes (adding years to the copyright, for example,
does not change the license).  It is made more difficult by the fact that
there is no central source for administering/updating the license (as the
GPL as the FSF).


John

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com