Re: logos and the BSD license - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

>Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>>Shane Ambler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23/8/2006 18:17, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 10:38 schrieb Koen Martens:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You are probably right. If the goal is to let anyone use the
>>>>>graphics in any way they want, why have a license at all??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because under international copyright law, if there is no license (or some
>>>>other explicit permission), you don't have the right to do anything with
>>>>the
>>>>work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The main point is, however, that it is not completely clear how the
>>>>>BSD license, a software license, applies to graphics. So maybe there
>>>>>is nothing wrong with having the BSD license, but that is not really
>>>>>clear to me (and perhaps others).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>In computing, there is only software, hardware, and wetware.  Computer
>>>>graphics are also software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>The BSD license really doesn't apply itself to software very well.
>>
>>
>
>Huh!?  That's news to me.  Can you elaborate a bit?
>
>
>
>
>>I don't see what the problem with Creative Commons is. It is quickly
>>becoming the license standard for creative works.
>>
>>
>
>Creative Commons is not a license.  If you point at a specific CC
>license we can discuss things, otherwise everyone is just handwaving.
>
>
>
The Creative Commons stuff, as the BSD license, pre-supposes that there
is a clear copyright by an entity or group of entities that has been
acknowlerdged and asserted by the copyright holder.  In the case of
Postgresql, where can you find a definitive and defined copyright
holder?  In the absence of a copyright holder, material is in the public
domain, and this is dangerous, since public domain materials can be
captured and as part of a large work, be copyrighted.  Who in the
postgresql community can say I or my group owns the copyright, therefore
we license the work to you.  And, given the attribution rule of creative
commons, just who should be attributed in terms of postgresql materials
-- we attribute this to all you postgresql folks, whereever you might be
hiding, and whoever you are, in direct proportion to your claim
contribution to 8.2? or all possible versions.  This molehill reminds me
of the Catholic concept of scrupolosity..


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006