Re: Proposal for Updating CRC32C with AVX-512 Algorithm. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:00:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> While the license we are concerned about does not have this clause, it
> does have:
> 
>      2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>     copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
>     disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
>     with the distribution.
> 
> I assume that must also include the name of the copyright holder.
> 
> I think that means we need to mention The Regents of the University of
> California in our copyright notice, which we do.  However several
> non-Regents of the University of California copyright holder licenses
> exist in our source tree, and accepting this AVX-512 patch would add
> another one.  Specifically, I see existing entries for:
> 
>     Aaron D. Gifford
>     Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
>     David Burren
>     Eric P. Allman
>     Jens Schweikhardt
>     Marko Kreen
>     Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>     WIDE Project
>     
> Now, some of these are these names plus Berkeley, and some are just the
> names above.

In summary, either we are doing something wrong in how we list
copyrights in our documentation, or we don't need to make any changes for
this Intel patch.

Our license is at:

    https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

The Intel copyright in the source code is:

     * Copyright 2017 The Chromium Authors
     * Copyright (c) 2024, Intel(r) Corporation
     *
     * Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
     * found in the Chromium source repository LICENSE file.
     * https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/LICENSE

and the URL contents are:

    // Copyright 2015 The Chromium Authors
    //
    // Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    // modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
    // met:
    //
    //    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    // notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    //    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
    // copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
    // in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
    // distribution.
    //    * Neither the name of Google LLC nor the names of its
    // contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
    // this software without specific prior written permission.
    //
    // THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
    // "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
    // LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
    // A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
    // OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
    // SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
    // LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
    // DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
    // THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
    // (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
    // OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Google LLC is added to clause three, and I assume Intel is also covered
by this because it is considered "the names of its contributors", maybe?

It would be good to know exactly what, if any, changes the Intel lawyers
want us to make to our license if we accept this patch.

There are also different versions of clause three in our source tree.
The Postgres license only lists the University of California in our
equivalent of clause three, meaning that there are three-clause BSD
licenses in our source tree that reference entities that we don't
reference in the Postgres license.  Oddly, the Postgres license doesn't
even disclaim warranties for the PostgreSQL Global Development Group,
only for Berkeley.

An even bigger issue is that we are distributing 3-clause BSD licensed
software under the Postgres license, which is not the 3-clause BSD
license.  I think we were functioning under the assuption that the
licenses are compatibile, so can be combined, which is true, but I don't
think we can assume the individual licenses can be covered by our one
license, can we?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.