Thread: License for PostgreSQL for commercial purpose

Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
Oracle Certified 8i DBA

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Yum [mailto:eric.yum@ck-lifesciences.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:30 AM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: [ADMIN] License for PostgreSQL for commercial purpose

Dear Sir

 

I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to develop some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I learn from some websites that it cost no charge for developing software with PostgreSQL in commercial environment. However, I saw the PostgreSQL is under two type of licenses, namely, X11-style license and BSD license for the following websites,

http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html

http://www.gnu.org/directory/database/servers/postgresql.html

 

Please kindly provide professional comment on this issue and suggest whether the use of PostgreSQL for commercial purpose is no license charge or not

 

 

Thanks & Best Regards,

Eric Yum

CK Life Sciences Ltd.

Finance & Administration - IT Team

Tel: 21261351

 

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Eric Yum wrote:

> Dear Sir
>
> I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to develop
> some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I learn from some websites that
> it cost no charge for developing software with PostgreSQL in commercial
> environment. However, I saw the PostgreSQL is under two type of
> licenses, namely, X11-style license
> <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/X11.html>  and BSD license for the
> following websites,
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html
> http://www.gnu.org/directory/database/servers/postgresql.html

Postgresql falls under an X11 LIKE license, which happens to be the BSD
license.  Of the links listed, the only definitive one is the one from
www.postgresql.org

Postgresql is free for use in all instances, commercial or otherwise.
The only requirements are the ones listed on the licence page you listed.
I.e. you have to include the copyright notice.

So, it's free as in beer (no cost) and free as in freedom (no restrictions
on use.)

Eric Yum wrote:
> Dear Sir
>
> I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to
> develop some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I learn from some
> websites that it cost no charge for developing software with
> PostgreSQL in commercial environment. However, I saw the PostgreSQL
> is under two type of licenses, namely, X11-style license
> <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/X11.html>  and BSD license for the
> following websites, http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html
> http://www.gnu.org/directory/database/servers/postgresql.html
>
> Please kindly provide professional comment on this issue and suggest
> whether the use of PostgreSQL for commercial purpose is no license
> charge or not

I would suggest that if you work for a commercial company, you should
have your corporate attorneys review the licenses for your company's sake.

--
Until later, Geoffrey                     Registered Linux User #108567
Building secure systems in spite of Microsoft

eric.yum@ck-lifesciences.com ("Eric Yum") writes:
> I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to
> develop some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I learn from some
> websites that it cost no charge for developing software with
> PostgreSQL in commercial environment. However, I saw the PostgreSQL
> is under two type of licenses, namely, X11-style license and BSD
> license for the following websites, :p>
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html:p>
>
> http://www.gnu.org/directory/database/servers/postgresql.html:p>
>
> Please kindly provide professional comment on this issue and suggest
> whether the use of PostgreSQL for commercial purpose is no license
> charge or not :p>

What you are observing is that the Free Software Foundation (who hold
the gnu.org domain) felt a need to write up their own interpretation
of what they feel various licenses mean.

The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
license."  They felt a need to distinguish between different
variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'

The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
(again in their terms).

None of that establishes that there is actually more than one license
under which you can obtain PostgreSQL; it merely indicates that the
FSF felt the need to use a different name for the license.

There aren't two licenses; there's just one.  And it allows you to use
PostgreSQL for whatever purpose you like without imposing any
licensing fees.

I also find it quite curious that you intend to deploy applications
with a version of PostgreSQL that is known to have bugs fixed by later
releases.  The fact that version 7.3.6 has been released should be
clearly interpreted as indicating that there were problems with all
preceding versions, and that users are to be encouraged to upgrade to
that version.

Furthermore, 7.4.2 has been released, offering substantial performance
and other functionality advantages over the 7.3 series.  It would seem
odd to start developing applications with a version that has already
been (arguably) superceded by a new major release.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #130.  "All members of my Legions of Terror
will  have professionally  tailored  uniforms. If  the  hero knocks  a
soldier unconscious and steals the uniform, the poor fit will give him
away." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:

> The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
> license."  They felt a need to distinguish between different
> variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'
>
> The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
> considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
> terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
> (again in their terms).

No, that's not what the FSF says.  All the BSD licenses are considered
free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.)  Most BSD licenses
are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a
problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the
GPL.

The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
compatible.

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:04:10PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>
> The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
> considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
> terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
> (again in their terms).

To be fair to the FSF, they have never claimed that the original BSD
license was not a free license.  It just wasn't compatible with the
GPL, because of the advertising clause.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Doug Quale wrote:
| Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
|
|
|>The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
|>license."  They felt a need to distinguish between different
|>variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'
|>
|>The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
|>considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
|>terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
|>(again in their terms).
|
|
| No, that's not what the FSF says.  All the BSD licenses are considered
| free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.)  Most BSD licenses
| are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a
| problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the
| GPL.
|
| The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
| compatible.

Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?

Not that I would, just curious. And even if I did, it would be a severly
castrated postgresql, as the history of the "My" particle suggests :))
~ - sorry I couldn't resist.

Cheers,
- --
Radu-Adrian Popescu
CSA, DBA, Developer
Aldratech Ltd.
+40213212243
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAZF2TVZmwYru5w6ERAsL4AJsH8ap61BO6i7i5dJ0rDmWFQ9270ACglcUL
fuQ+y2GN8lC30TTdloqhId0=
=lEP9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Radu-Adrian Popescu wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Doug Quale wrote:
> | Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> |
> |
> |>The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
> |>license."  They felt a need to distinguish between different
> |>variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'
> |>
> |>The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
> |>considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
> |>terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
> |>(again in their terms).
> |
> |
> | No, that's not what the FSF says.  All the BSD licenses are considered
> | free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.)  Most BSD licenses
> | are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a
> | problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the
> | GPL.
> |
> | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
> | compatible.
>
> Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
> a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?
>
> Not that I would, just curious. And even if I did, it would be a severly
> castrated postgresql, as the history of the "My" particle suggests :))
> ~ - sorry I couldn't resist.

No, it means you can distribute the two together like on a redhat CD
without worrying about conflicting licenses.

Radu-Adrian Popescu <radu.popescu@aldratech.com> writes:

> Doug Quale wrote:
>
> | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
> | compatible.
>
> Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
> a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?

Absolutely.  This has been done.  For example, GNU bison was derived
many years ago from Berkeley yacc.

You can go further and make a non-free MyPostgresql.  Use Postgres
code in a completely proprietary project if you like.  The X11 license
places far fewer restrictions on code than does the GPL.  Works
derived from X11-licensed code do not have to be free.

Hi,

> > | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
> > | compatible.
> >
> > Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
> > a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?
> >
> No, it means you can distribute the two together like on a redhat CD
> without worrying about conflicting licenses.

If I understand the licenses correctly, the point about being GPL-compatible is
not putting everything on a CD. It's linking gpl code with non-gpl code. Say, I
create a command-based dump utility for PostgreSQL (and so links the pgsql
clientlibrary) but use the GNU Readline library for command-listory (which is
gpl'ed). If the PostgreSQL license wasn't compatible, I would bot be able to
link the Readline library into my executable.


[]s, Fernando Lozano

Eric Yum wrote:
> http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html

You should get your local legal professional to give an opinion if you
intend to redistribute. One specific area of contention amongst "BSD
license" people is the phrase:

"... for any purpose, without fee, and ..."

Some opine that this means the software in question can *only* be
distributed without charging a fee, whilst other have claimed that this
(should) be read as "... for any purpose, with or without fee, and ...",
perhaps dropping the ", without fee" altogether to retain its potentially
originally intended meaning.

The problem is that intent is never simple to convey in legal terms. Until
this is tested in court, you can only get opinions.

PS I am waving my opinion over BSD style licenses in general and not just
the PostgreSQL project. Each copyright owner can choose to do whatever they
like.

Peter

"Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> writes:
> You should get your local legal professional to give an opinion if you
> intend to redistribute. One specific area of contention amongst "BSD
> license" people is the phrase:
> "... for any purpose, without fee, and ..."
> Some opine that this means the software in question can *only* be
> distributed without charging a fee, whilst other have claimed that this
> (should) be read as "... for any purpose, with or without fee, and ...",

Neither of those readings is correct.  The correct interpretation is
that the copyright holders (us and UCB, in the case of Postgres) aren't
charging any fee.  This does not prohibit others from charging for their
own efforts.

To read it as prohibiting fees for redistribution would mean that, for
example, no Linux distribution could include BSD-licensed software
(at least not on CD sets that they charge money for).  I don't know of
anyone who thinks that is appropriate or intended.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Neither of those readings is correct.  The correct interpretation is
> that the copyright holders (us and UCB, in the case of Postgres)
> aren't charging any fee.  This does not prohibit others from charging
> for their own efforts.

As I said in my original reply, intention has little bearing to (legal)
reality. The legal advice received by some, including the OpenBSD project -
so I understand, is that the wording is not clear enough and is open to
interpretation.

> To read it as prohibiting fees for redistribution would mean that, for
> example, no Linux distribution could include BSD-licensed software
> (at least not on CD sets that they charge money for).  I don't know of
> anyone who thinks that is appropriate or intended.

See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for some of that project's view. This
specific issue if not discusses, but note that sadly PostgreSQL is not
distributed on the CD-ROm for this exact very reason. i.e.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/databases/postgresql/Makefile?rev=1.65&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

I also note this exact issue was discussed last year on pgsql-general.

Peter

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 02:10, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neither of those readings is correct.  The correct interpretation is
> > that the copyright holders (us and UCB, in the case of Postgres)
> > aren't charging any fee.  This does not prohibit others from charging
> > for their own efforts.
>
> As I said in my original reply, intention has little bearing to (legal)
> reality. The legal advice received by some, including the OpenBSD project -
> so I understand, is that the wording is not clear enough and is open to
> interpretation.

If I didn't say it then, I will say it now; IMHO the legal advice they
received was faulty. Given that the copyright owners have gone on record
many times explaining what their intentions are, if they were to try to
take legal action against someone, that party could easily produce
enough evidence to show they were at no fault in using the code as the
copyright holders intended it to be used.

>
> > To read it as prohibiting fees for redistribution would mean that, for
> > example, no Linux distribution could include BSD-licensed software
> > (at least not on CD sets that they charge money for).  I don't know of
> > anyone who thinks that is appropriate or intended.
>
> See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for some of that project's view. This
> specific issue if not discusses, but note that sadly PostgreSQL is not
> distributed on the CD-ROm for this exact very reason. i.e.
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/databases/postgresql/Makefile?rev=1.65&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
>

Yep. IMHO this is more do to a political agenda they are trying to push
than any true basis in legal fact, as again, they could easily contact
this project for a letter of clarification if their goal was to protect
themselves legally.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL