Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ
Date
Msg-id 200703030316.l233GMu06511@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> >>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> >>>
> >>>     <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> >>>     to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> >>>     Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> >>>     patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
> >>>     a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> >>>     email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> >>>     please do not post the patch.</li>
> >> How about something simpler:
> >>
> >> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
> >> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
> >> ignored.</li>
> > 
> > No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
> > much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
> > with a BSD license.
> 
> Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my 
> clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).
> 
> In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no 
> desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two 
> sentences. We could adjust a bit though:
> 
> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept 
> patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be 
> rejected.</li>
> 
> Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" 
> to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.

Agreed we want simple wording.  The existing complexity is caused by
trying to explain that if basing a patch on a BSD-compatibile license,
we need to know about it.  Your wording doesn't have that distinction. 
Perhaps the distinction isn't important.  I didn't write that particular
part of the FAQ myself.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Mark Wong"
Date:
Subject: FYI - another open source tpc-c kit
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: FYI - another open source tpc-c kit