Re: responses to licensing discussion - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Karl DeBisschop |
---|---|
Subject | Re: responses to licensing discussion |
Date | |
Msg-id | 39632B80.CBD28EC0@h00a0cc3b7988.ne.mediaone.net Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: responses to licensing discussion (Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
Philip Warner wrote: > > At 02:36 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > So the problem left are binary distributions. > > > > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty > flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for > architectures that support RPM. RPM does allow this. But it does sort of screw up the distribution process to have all these dialogs in the RPMS. With redhat, I fire up the installation and walk away because redhat has been pretty religious about suppressing dialogs. With debian, I fire up the install, then keep comimg back to the machine every 15 minute because one package or another is waiting for me to enter a few keystrokes (NOTE to distribution partisans - there are things I like better about each distribution - I'm not advocating one over the other here) > We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the > postmaster is started etc etc. On initdb seems reasonable, and gets around the issue above. > We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they > first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is > access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users > never see the BSD waiver of PG... Why don't they? The installer accepts the license. It is then the role of the installer to ensure that all the people he/she supports understand how the software may be used, IMHO. For instance, unless I am the installer of M$ Office, I don't see the shrink wrap. Which means nearly all users in an office don't see the shrink wrap. But that seems okay to M$. I would urge that this issue of actively acknowleging license not be carried too far. In the extreme, imagine connecting to a MS IIS web server, it checks afor a unique cookie on your machine and says "Hmm - I don't know that this user has ever connected to IIS before - they have not been to my site - so I'd better pop up a dialog first" IMHO, it is your responsibilty os the provider of services to make your users aware of the various licenses that apply. If PG adopts something like the above mechanism, then you may well want to have a dialog for your users to do just that. But PG should not dictate how I interact with my users. Instead of disturbing my web users, maybe there should be an additional requirement in the license that says people who repackage postgres, or make it available through other means, are responsible for ensuring that the users are aware of the license requirements. Then a RedHat type vendor can add the PG license to their intro screen, or they can leave a message in initdb active. PG could provide tools to make notification on first connect easier, but I do not believe that needs to be enforced by PG. Come to think of it, this sort of propagation clause may be needed anyway. Otheriwse, I could download PG by clicking through your license screen on the website, then post it to an ftp repository somewhere. Once I've done that, it seems to me that someone downloading from my ftp site would never acknowlege the license, and there you are on the hook again. Right now the BSD handles this passive for the passive case - the license stipulates that the license must appear in derivative products. If active acknowlegement is required (not that I like the idea, but if it is required to protect developers) then that active aknowlegement must somehow stipulate that all deriviative products need to include some similar form of active acknowlegement. Otherwise you will never be able to distribute source, and it won't be open source anymore. -- Karl DeBisschop
pgsql-general by date: