Thread: Misplaced modifier in Postgresql license
Something very important was recently raised on the misc@openbsd.org list. Due to the current environment that SCO is fostering in the open source community, it would be prudent for the PostgreSQL team to consider this issue. The website claims that "PostgreSQL is distributed under the flexible BSD license". A glance at the license appears to confirm this, however, there is a misplaced modifier in the first paragraph following the copyright notices: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, WITHOUT FEE, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies." I have used CAPS to highlight the apparent error. There are two ways to interpret this statement. One interpretation is that permission is given and no fee will be charged for the granting of that permission. The other is that permission is given so long as by using the software no fee is charged to others. The result of this ambiguity is that the latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql. It is on the ftp sites, but the OpenBSD CDs are distributed for a fee because they are a profit generator for the project. The project has encountered problems in the past regarding ambiguous licenses, and as a result the need to protect the porject outweighs the convenience of distributing packages with ambiguous licenses. I believe that this is merely a bug in the wording of the license, and that it doesn't reflect the intention of the project. I hope that my words will be considered carefully, and that appropriate steps will be taken to resolve this problem. Thank you. Breen Ouellette OpenBSD & PostgreSQL user
Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> The result of this ambiguity is that the
> latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's
box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute
Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes: > > The result of this ambiguity is that the > > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql > > We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley. > We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so. > > Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream > redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's > box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute > Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours. Agreed. If you have changed original BSD license on the code you got from Berkeley that had this wording, seems you could just change the wording of the PostgreSQL code too. Seems to be the same issue. I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
> > The result of this ambiguity is that the
> > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
> We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
> We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)
> Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
> redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's
> box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute
> Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.
i find this somewhat hostile response troubling.
it's common for geeks on the net to play at being lawyers, and it
is also common to discover later that the law doesn't work the way
the geeks want it to.
in the case of PostgreSQL's removal from the OpenBSD CDs, it
was done as part of an ongoing license audit -- and it is important
to note that it wasn't an uninformed decision. Theo actually consulted
with IP lawyers, and so there is some actual, direct legal advice
to the effect that the misplaced "without fee" clause is a potential
problem.
so in this case, Theo and the OpenBSD team aren't "playing
lawyer". they went to the trouble to actually talk to one.
if you go to the trouble to talk to the IP lawyers for the Regents,
you may find that you can easily get permission to migrate the
license to the current "BSD License".
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Richard Welty wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes: > > > The result of this ambiguity is that the > > > latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql > > > We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley. > > We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so. > > but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have > changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on > to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the > advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from > all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from > the original BSD project.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there might be someone in there who disagrees with the change. Not even the Regents can backdate a licence chage and have it affect all subsequent contributions. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good > men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke > "The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be > governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:01:39 +1100 Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from
> every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there
> might be someone in there who disagrees with the change.
i don't. i'm a geek who is refusing to play lawyer right now. it might
be a good idea to consult with one.
note, however, that the copyright assignment is to:
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, The PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California
which suggests that the Regents and "The PostgreSQL Global
Development Group" hold the rights, and so those are the only two
entities that would need to grant permission. i'm not sure what kind
of legal entity the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is,
though. it might end up meaning each individual, if it's not an
actual corporation. there's no substitute for an informed legal
opinion on this subject. is one available?
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
In the last exciting episode, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) wrote: > I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like. :-) I think you haven't conversed with Theo enough [shudder...] You wouln't want him to prefer the GPL, would you :-). -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/internet.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #178. "If I have the hero cornered and am about to finish him off and he says "Look out behind you!!" I will not laugh and say "You don't expect me to fall for that old trick, do you?" Instead I will take a step to the side and half turn. That way I can still keep my weapon trained on the hero, I can scan the area behind me, and if anything was heading for me it will now be heading for him." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Christopher Browne wrote: > In the last exciting episode, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) wrote: > > I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like. :-) > > I think you haven't conversed with Theo enough [shudder...] > > You wouln't want him to prefer the GPL, would you :-). What kills me is that OpenBSD is actually saying their own BSD license is invalid if the wording doesn't match. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073