Thread: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Greetings all, I'm sending this to -announce, -hackers, and -general; apologies for the cross-post. Replies should automatically go to -general, which is the best forum for this discussion. But I wanted to make sure the largest possible audience of PostgreSQL users had a chance to comment... Several weeks ago, we announced the formation of a new company called Great Bridge, which will professionally market and support open source software solutions based on PostgreSQL. As we said at the time, we've been working since late last year to understand the software itself, the needs of business customers who might be inclined to use PostgreSQL, and of course the dynamics of the PostgreSQL development community. Our team met with the six members of the PostgreSQL core steering group in March, and had a good and open exchange about each other's plans for the future. One issue that has always been a source of uncertainty - I think for all of us - has been the license under which PostgreSQL is distributed. As we've said publicly on Slashdot, ZDNet, and other forums, we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with the code. We've also found, through some rather extensive market research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like Mozilla, etc. I don't want to re-start that debate here - the consensus in the PostgreSQL community over the past few years seems to be that the Berkeley style license is best suited for the continued development of PostgreSQL. What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place - protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity. Rusty Friddell, the general counsel of Great Bridge's parent company Landmark Communications, explained our views on this to the core group in March, and they expressed an interest in our going ahead with some research on how the license might be improved. So Great Bridge went ahead and engaged two outside law firms to work on it, and we now have something we're ready to present to the community. We've included the core group in early looks at some of the thinking, and we all feel it's now ready for a full-fledged debate in the broader hacker world. I'm including below two things - 1) a note from Rusty explaining a bit more about what we're trying to do, and 2) the proposed text of the license itself. I'll monitor the discussion on the -general list, and if anyone has any specific questions for Rusty, I'll be happy to channel them to him. Thanks, Ned Lilly VP Hacker Relations Great Bridge, LLC ----- text of note from Rusty Friddell, general counsel of Landmark Communications, Inc.: What follows is a suggested addition to the existing Berkeley license governing the use of PostgreSQL. The changes are suggested mainly to address and deal with the many contributions by the hacker community to the work of the original licensor, the University of California. Unlike other open source licenses (GNU, Mozilla, Interbase), the original Berkeley license does not take into account that over time a lot of different individual developers and perhaps some corporate contributors, would have individual copyrights on substantial portions of the code. This deficiency has two adverse affects. First, the contributing developers are not afforded the protection of the exculpatory language in "bold face." Certainly, having given of their time and creativity without compensation, the developers should be extended this coverage as clearly as possible. Second, and admittedly of significant importance to Great Bridge, the commercial proliferation of PostgreSQL could be hindered if business users are concerned that the license might not cover the substantial additions and improvements made to the code over the last few years. In developing the new language, the resources of two intellectual property law firms, one East Coast and one West Coast, were tapped. No less important was my education by the core group as to what was good about the existing license. As a result of the former, you will see some minor language clean up. From the latter, you'll note a pretty strict adherence to the "short and sweet" approach of the original Berkeley license, particularly as compared to the lawyer-friendly (that may be an oxymoron) GPL and Mozilla licenses. No discussion of this type should be without controversy, so I throw you the following red meat: the choice of state law has been selected to cause the application of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) to the usage of the software. (Pause for outrage to subside.) Now, I ask that you suspend your initial reaction for a moment and consider the following. As to this license, you are not on the receiving end of an attempted screwing at the hands of some evil empire desiring to take advantage of defenseless consumers. You are the volunteer creators and improvers of this product who, without remuneration, are providing sophisticated business users with an alternative to proprietary database software. I submit that your efforts should be exempted from any potential liability. The original Berkeley language sought that result, and would likely suffice in most states under most circumstances. The application of UCITA simply ensures the result that the original language attempts to achieve. Much of the rest of the UCITA is simply inapplicable to this product - the risk that big brother will reach into your computer and remove Postgres for failure to pay license fees is simply not present where we're dealing with a free product. End of manifesto. Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state. Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not require a connection with the state and thereby gives somewhat greater assurance that UCITA will apply to all Postgres-related dealings, wherever they occur. The fact that Great Bridge is based in Virginia is really a complete coincidence. The revised license also anticipates a concern which many people raised in a comment to the Great Bridge announcement, and which came up again in the recent Berkeley DB discussion. It was the mutual determination of Great Bridge and the PGSQL core group that, while none of us wanted to see the software taken private, an attempt to legislate, through the license, that every modification anyone made had to be contributed back to the public use, would be poorly received and would possibly discourage the use by businesses who might want to make certain improvements for their internal use only. Accordingly, the compromise is that no such "poison pill" type language has been added to the original Berkeley text, although we have provided that once a contribution to the PostgreSQL project has been voluntarily made, it is subject to this license and is irrevocable - which seems to provide the open-source perpetuity that everyone is looking for. ----- [To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license must be seen before downloading can occur] PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres95) This directory contains the _______ release of PostgreSQL, as well as various post-release patches in the patches directory. See INSTALL for the installation notes and HISTORY for the changes. We also have a WWW home page located at: http://www.postgreSQL.org ------------------------- PostgreSQL is not public domain software. It is copyrighted by the University of California but may be used according to the following licensing terms: POSTGRES95 Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95). Copyright (c) 1994-8 Regents of the University of California 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. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. ------------------------- Copyright ( 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by various contributors (as identified in HISTORY) (collectively "Developers") which may be used according to the following licensing terms: Worldwide 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, on a non-exclusive basis, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following paragraphs appear in all copies: Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license. IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY DEVELOPER BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE DEVELOPERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NEED, OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. NO DEVELOPER HAS ANY OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO OR FOR THE SOFTWARE OR DOCUMENTATION. The foregoing shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Virginia. BY USING THIS SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU SHOULD NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE.
Ned Lilly writes: > What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the > existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place - In order to tighten up the license you'd need to get every developer past, present, and future to sign paperwork that they agree to this change. > protecting the developers who worked on the code, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you, as a developer, want to "protect" yourself, talk to a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction, and not "one East coast" and "one West coast". And don't trust any untested licenses based on a law that will potentially be overturned in the Supreme Court anyway. > and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity. No, that's what the GPL does. > Second, and admittedly of significant importance to Great Bridge, the > commercial proliferation of PostgreSQL could be hindered if business > users are concerned that the license might not cover the substantial > additions and improvements made to the code over the last few years. How can you guarantee them that none of the code now is under a different license (because it was ripped off somewhere) or under patent restrictions? Or for that matter, how can you guarantee it in the future? What do you say to anyone that comes along and says "This is my code, it shouldn't be here"? Will you go back to the logs and prove that he "contributed or submitted" it and is therefore bound to the license? Changing the license wording might satisfy the suits, but it doesn't change reality a bit. It just creates more legal uncertainty for users at that point. The least thing we need is Yet Another Open Source License. To my knowledge, the BSD license has been used in one form or another for at least 20 years and neither has any contributor ever been sued for liability, nor was there any court case that concluded that the BSD license is worth anything at all, nor has the developer or commercial acceptance of any product ever been affected by this "untight" license. > [To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license > must be seen before downloading can occur] That's funny... > The foregoing shall be governed by and construed under the laws of > the State of Virginia. The recurring theme throughout this email was that Great Bridge has apparently not appreciated that PostgreSQL land extends beyond the borders of the U.S. of A. Maybe your 32 focus groups in major U.S. cities wanted the license changed like this, but I'll bet lunch that 32 out of 32 focus groups in major European cities will look with extreme suspicion at anything with "laws of the State of XXX" attached to it. Until they realize that the laws of Virginia don't apply to them. Or to Canada, where hub.org is located these days. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons: 1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications must do so under the same licence. Submits to what or whom? 2) If the core team want to make sure modifications to the software are under the same licence then they should merely insist that any patches are accompanied by that same licence (i.e. the current licence). End of story end of problem. If you want to go any further than that you may as well go GPL. 3) You talk about how wonderful the BSD licence is, then you really change the whole meaning of that licence. 4) What is this stuff about "tightening up of what the existing licence is supposed to do"? What do you think it is supposed to do? I think it is basicly an annoying artifact of UCB's legal team that happens to make the software virtually public domain. We might just as well get rid of all licences except that we're not allowed. 5) This "protection" for developers is a straw-man. I don't see, say the free-bsd developers worried about this. If Great bridge wants to distribute with extra disclaimers then go ahead. 6) This is a very US-centric view of the world. Most of the developers are not in the US if the postgresql.org home page is correct. We don't care about the stinkin UCITA, we are not bound by and don't care about anything the State of Virginia may or may not say. 7) I hope you're not thinking of bloating each and every source file with all that legalese. 8) "To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license must be seen before downloading can occur". Umm, can all the laywers please just butt out? Every other open-source package in the universe just relies on a licence file in the home directory. You going to try and stop people downloading with clicking a licence agreement? How you going to handle mirrors? Or are you not going to mirror any more? What about Red Hat el al? Point (8) makes me thing that this whole thing is the recommendation of some lawyer who is totally out of touch with the free software community but feels compelled to add a whole lot of disclaimers and so-forth because that's his job. Bottom line is it's not broke so leave it alone. Ned Lilly wrote: > > Greetings all, > > I'm sending this to -announce, -hackers, and -general; apologies for > the cross-post. Replies should automatically go to -general, which > is the best forum for this discussion. But I wanted to make sure > the largest possible audience of PostgreSQL users had a chance to > comment... > > Several weeks ago, we announced the formation of a new company > called Great Bridge, which will professionally market and support > open source software solutions based on PostgreSQL. As we said at > the time, we've been working since late last year to understand the > software itself, the needs of business customers who might be > inclined to use PostgreSQL, and of course the dynamics of the > PostgreSQL development community. Our team met with the six members > of the PostgreSQL core steering group in March, and had a good and > open exchange about each other's plans for the future. > > One issue that has always been a source of uncertainty - I think for > all of us - has been the license under which PostgreSQL is > distributed. As we've said publicly on Slashdot, ZDNet, and other > forums, we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it > more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the > user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with > the code. We've also found, through some rather extensive market > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like > Mozilla, etc. I don't want to re-start that debate here - the > consensus in the PostgreSQL community over the past few years seems > to be that the Berkeley style license is best suited for the > continued development of PostgreSQL. > > What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the > existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place - > protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that > the code stays open source in perpetuity. Rusty Friddell, the > general counsel of Great Bridge's parent company Landmark > Communications, explained our views on this to the core group in > March, and they expressed an interest in our going ahead with some > research on how the license might be improved. So Great Bridge went > ahead and engaged two outside law firms to work on it, and we now > have something we're ready to present to the community. We've > included the core group in early looks at some of the thinking, and > we all feel it's now ready for a full-fledged debate in the broader > hacker world. > > I'm including below two things - 1) a note from Rusty explaining a > bit more about what we're trying to do, and 2) the proposed text of > the license itself. I'll monitor the discussion on the -general > list, and if anyone has any specific questions for Rusty, I'll be > happy to channel them to him. > > Thanks, > > Ned Lilly > VP Hacker Relations > Great Bridge, LLC > > ----- > > text of note from Rusty Friddell, general counsel of Landmark > Communications, Inc.: > > What follows is a suggested addition to the existing Berkeley > license governing the use of PostgreSQL. The changes are suggested > mainly to address and deal with the many contributions by the hacker > community to the work of the original licensor, the University of > California. Unlike other open source licenses (GNU, Mozilla, > Interbase), the original Berkeley license does not take into account > that over time a lot of different individual developers and perhaps > some corporate contributors, would have individual copyrights on > substantial portions of the code. > > This deficiency has two adverse affects. First, the contributing > developers are not afforded the protection of the exculpatory > language in "bold face." Certainly, having given of their time and > creativity without compensation, the developers should be extended > this coverage as clearly as possible. Second, and admittedly of > significant importance to Great Bridge, the commercial proliferation > of PostgreSQL could be hindered if business users are concerned that > the license might not cover the substantial additions and > improvements made to the code over the last few years. > > In developing the new language, the resources of two intellectual > property law firms, one East Coast and one West Coast, were tapped. > No less important was my education by the core group as to what was > good about the existing license. As a result of the former, you > will see some minor language clean up. From the latter, you'll note > a pretty strict adherence to the "short and sweet" approach of the > original Berkeley license, particularly as compared to the > lawyer-friendly (that may be an oxymoron) GPL and Mozilla licenses. > > No discussion of this type should be without controversy, so I throw > you the following red meat: the choice of state law has been > selected to cause the application of the Uniform Computer > Information Transactions Act (UCITA) to the usage of the software. > > (Pause for outrage to subside.) > > Now, I ask that you suspend your initial reaction for a moment and > consider the following. As to this license, you are not on the > receiving end of an attempted screwing at the hands of some evil > empire desiring to take advantage of defenseless consumers. You are > the volunteer creators and improvers of this product who, without > remuneration, are providing sophisticated business users with an > alternative to proprietary database software. > > I submit that your efforts should be exempted from any potential > liability. The original Berkeley language sought that result, and > would likely suffice in most states under most circumstances. The > application of UCITA simply ensures the result that the original > language attempts to achieve. Much of the rest of the UCITA is > simply inapplicable to this product - the risk that big brother will > reach into your computer and remove Postgres for failure to pay > license fees is simply not present where we're dealing with a free > product. End of manifesto. > > Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has > an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will > only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state. > Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not require > a connection with the state and thereby gives somewhat greater > assurance that UCITA will apply to all Postgres-related dealings, > wherever they occur. The fact that Great Bridge is based in > Virginia is really a complete coincidence. > > The revised license also anticipates a concern which many people > raised in a comment to the Great Bridge announcement, and which came > up again in the recent Berkeley DB discussion. It was the mutual > determination of Great Bridge and the PGSQL core group that, while > none of us wanted to see the software taken private, an attempt to > legislate, through the license, that every modification anyone made > had to be contributed back to the public use, would be poorly > received and would possibly discourage the use by businesses who > might want to make certain improvements for their internal use > only. Accordingly, the compromise is that no such "poison pill" > type language has been added to the original Berkeley text, although > we have provided that once a contribution to the PostgreSQL project > has been voluntarily made, it is subject to this license and is > irrevocable - which seems to provide the open-source perpetuity that > everyone is looking for. > > ----- > > [To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license > must be seen before downloading can occur] > > PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as > Postgres95) > > This directory contains the _______ release of PostgreSQL, as well > as various post-release patches in the patches directory. See > INSTALL for the installation notes and HISTORY for the changes. > > We also have a WWW home page located at: http://www.postgreSQL.org > > ------------------------- > > PostgreSQL is not public domain software. It is copyrighted by the > University of California but may be used according to the following > licensing terms: > > POSTGRES95 Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres, > then as Postgres95). > > Copyright (c) 1994-8 Regents of the University of California > > 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. > > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY > PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL > DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS > SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA > HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > > THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, > INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE > PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF > CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, > UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. > > ------------------------- > > Copyright ( 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by various contributors (as > identified in HISTORY) (collectively "Developers") which may be used > according to the following licensing terms: > > Worldwide 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, on a non-exclusive > basis, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and > the following paragraphs appear in all copies: > > Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other > change to the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants > irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to > use, copy, further modify and distribute the same under the terms of > this license. > > IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY DEVELOPER BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, > INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, > WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS > SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > > THE DEVELOPERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NEED, OR QUALITY, > AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. > IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH > ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION > PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. NO DEVELOPER HAS ANY > OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR > MODIFICATIONS TO OR FOR THE SOFTWARE OR DOCUMENTATION. > > The foregoing shall be governed by and construed under the laws of > the State of Virginia. > > BY USING THIS SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF > YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU SHOULD NOT USE > THIS SOFTWARE.
"We" (the Postgres steering committee) have discussed these issues for
months and months. We aren't trying to change anything, just reinforce
what we believe to be already the case. However, the path to do this
isn't perfectly clear to anyone; this is the first concrete proposal we
have had which does try to address the issues we believe are already
here whether we want them or not.
I'll bring them up farther down (and will probably forget and leave some
relevant pieces out).
> I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons:
> 1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without
> actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications
> must do so under the same licence. Submits to what or whom?
It is *not* trying to be GPL. It is trying to be BSD, while extending
liability protection to the current cast of developers, who are (I'm
pretty sure) not covered in any of the wording of the UCB-generated
license.
> 2) If the core team want to make sure modifications to the software are
> under the same licence then they should merely insist that any patches
> are accompanied by that same licence (i.e. the current licence). End of
> story end of problem. If you want to go any further than that you may as
> well go GPL.
The current license asks users to absolve the University of California
of any liability involving use of the Postgres source code. It does not
(currently) explicitly ask the same on behalf of the current developers
(including yourself ;)
> 3) You talk about how wonderful the BSD licence is, then you really
> change the whole meaning of that licence.
How?
> 4) What is this stuff about "tightening up of what the existing licence
> is supposed to do"? What do you think it is supposed to do? I think it
> is basicly an annoying artifact of UCB's legal team that happens to make
> the software virtually public domain. We might just as well get rid of
> all licences except that we're not allowed.
I disagree, though we don't know UC's motivations for sure. imho the BSD
license is intended to protect UC from "deep pockets" lawsuits, while
preserving some credit for the original design team and the institution
which made it possible.
The new wording is intended to continue to do exactly that, extending
the umbrella to cover developers with no connection to UC.
> 5) This "protection" for developers is a straw-man. I don't see, say the
> free-bsd developers worried about this. If Great bridge wants to
> distribute with extra disclaimers then go ahead.
It is being proposed as an addition to the Postgres development effort.
I'm sure that GB knows they could add anything they want to their own
product.
> 6) This is a very US-centric view of the world. Most of the developers
> are not in the US if the postgresql.org home page is correct. We don't
> care about the stinkin UCITA, we are not bound by and don't care about
> anything the State of Virginia may or may not say.
Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is
at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory. That may change
eventually, but since 90+% of our federal legislative representatives
are lawyers (stats from memory, but it is a *high* number), that may not
change very quickly :(
> 7) I hope you're not thinking of bloating each and every source file
> with all that legalese.
No, afaik that is not considered necessary.
> 8) "To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license
> must be seen before downloading can occur".
> Umm, can all the laywers please just butt out? Every other open-source
> package in the universe just relies on a licence file in the home
> directory. You going to try and stop people downloading with clicking a
> licence agreement? How you going to handle mirrors? Or are you not
> going to mirror any more? What about Red Hat el al?
Good point. Not exactly sure why this was suggested, but the American
courts are *full* of cases where the plaintif said that they "didn't
really know" something that should have been obvious.
> Point (8) makes me thing that this whole thing is the recommendation of
> some lawyer who is totally out of touch with the free software community
> but feels compelled to add a whole lot of disclaimers and so-forth
> because that's his job. Bottom line is it's not broke so leave it alone.
afaik "it's not broken" is true, for the free software community. And
part of my pleasure in contributing to Postgres is exactly because of
that general distain for legaleze and idiot-speak commercial agreements.
Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
*I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
contribute code which could make me a target for a lawsuit. I'd rather
short-circuit that before the lawsuit, rather than asking for a donation
for my defense ;)
So the intent was, as stated, to *reinforce* what we already believe to
be true (including yourself). The recently-enacted UCITA law was
(afaict) intended to protect, perhaps wrongly imho, commercial software
companies from liability claims (I know that Oracle *claims* a whole lot
more for 8i than we do for Postgres, so why shouldn't they be held
accountable for what they claim?). But UCITA is a sharp tool which we
can use to protect volunteer software developers such as myself, and
you.
I (and *all* of the steering committee) had pretty much the same
reaction as you did at first. But some of us are closer to the US legal
system, and see what silliness it can generate, so came around to
thinking that there was something to be gained by license additions.
Regards.
- Thomas
>One issue that has always been a source of uncertainty - I think for
>all of us - has been the license under which PostgreSQL is
>distributed.
Only an issue of uncertainty when people talk about changing it.
As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would
prefer to see it go GPL; this effectively prevents another company coming
along and swallowing the major developers as a means of stifling further
development. This latter tactic would probably never work, but it would be
extermely disruptive.
As a developer who likes to be able to make a buck from their work, I like
the idea of licencing my code for free use within, and only within, the
free, open-source version of PostgreSQL.
It seems to me that if you want to do all that you say, this is probably
the way to go.
>We've also found, through some rather extensive market
>research
Out of curiosity, who with & where?
>I don't want to re-start that debate here
Sorry.
> - the
>consensus in the PostgreSQL community over the past few years seems
>to be that the Berkeley style license is best suited for the
>continued development of PostgreSQL.
News to me. Perhaps an informed survey of the current PostgreSQL user base
might be in order (perhaps each party - BSD, GPL, and other - can put their
case in 500 words or less?). I would be very interested to know the
outcome. It seems to me that the camps are highly divided, perhaps the
majority prefer BSD, but I suspect that they all agree that the status-quo
is acceptable. Once you seek to change the agreement to another
non-standard agreement, I think you will be opening a can of worms. You
will at least have to persuade all past contribitors that your new version
is better than their favorite model and BSD.
>protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that
>the code stays open source in perpetuity.
No; this is what companies seeking to develop private versions of the
software want. As it stands, all developers who have contributed to PG over
the years still own the copyright of their code, and can withold the
license to use it. Unless they have assigned that copyright somewhere else,
or signed the sort of agreement you propose. Releasing code to the PG
community provides an implied license to the PG community. It does not
necessarily grant rights to others, unless specifically stated in the code.
This is why you have:
"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other
change to the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants
irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to
use, copy, further modify and distribute the same under the terms of
this license"
which just dimishes the rights of the developer make a buck if someone else
uses their code as part of a commercial version of PG.
I have just submitted a chunk of code to the project, and the notice in the
code says, basically, it is free to be used in any way. But I would have
*much* preferred it to have been under the GPL; then when someone fixes my
code, or improves it, I know that I will get to see (and use) the changes.
>Unlike other open source licenses (GNU, Mozilla,
>Interbase), the original Berkeley license does not take into account
>that over time a lot of different individual developers and perhaps
>some corporate contributors, would have individual copyrights on
>substantial portions of the code.
It does not need to in the sense that while it remains public and in it's
original form, an implied license is granted. Otherwise the notice that the
developer placed in the code holds, and failing that, whatever the
governing law for the country/state of origin applies. Generally this means
that the developer owns the copyright, but gives others rights to use it in
the public version of PG.
>This deficiency has two adverse affects. First, the contributing
>developers are not afforded the protection of the exculpatory
>language in "bold face."
I agree this is a problem. Developers should be warned to always add some
kind of text like this to all their public code - not just PG.
>Second, and admittedly of
>significant importance to Great Bridge, the commercial proliferation
>of PostgreSQL could be hindered if business users are concerned that
>the license might not cover the substantial additions and
>improvements made to the code over the last few years.
They will be covered so long as they release their developments back into
the community, I think.
>In developing the new language, the resources of two intellectual
>property law firms, one East Coast and one West Coast, were tapped.
What about European (east and west), Japanese, and Australian?
>No discussion of this type should be without controversy, so I throw
>you the following red meat: the choice of state law has been
>selected to cause the application of the Uniform Computer
>Information Transactions Act (UCITA) to the usage of the software.
>
>(Pause for outrage to subside.)
What is it? Does it even apply to me? [I am awaiting advice on this from my
IP lawyer]
>I submit that your efforts should be exempted from any potential
>liability.
This is good. We can add the extra <bold face> paragraph.
>Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland.
As a matter of interest - do Virginia & Maryland have a reputation for
being forward looking in their law making, and being protective of the
right of individuals over companies and government? I ask this because I
know very little about individual US states...
>had to be contributed back to the public use, would be poorly
>received and would possibly discourage the use by businesses who
>might want to make certain improvements for their internal use
How about allowing developers the choice, as they have now?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
I'm not going to comment on those points that Thomas said that I do agree
with, since it could become a very long email ...
> > 6) This is a very US-centric view of the world. Most of the developers
> > are not in the US if the postgresql.org home page is correct. We don't
> > care about the stinkin UCITA, we are not bound by and don't care about
> > anything the State of Virginia may or may not say.
>
> Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is
> at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory. That may change
> eventually, but since 90+% of our federal legislative representatives
> are lawyers (stats from memory, but it is a *high* number), that may not
> change very quickly :(
Point 6 here is the one that prevents me from being able to back up this
change, and is the reason I'm against it. PostgreSQL, for 3+ years, has
been a *Canadian* based project, yet now she's going to fall under US
laws? The whole 'juristiction of Virginia' point puts me on the
"anti-changes" side of this issue ... and other then that point, (and
pending several more re-reads), I like the general wording of the
additions ...
> > 8) "To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license
> > must be seen before downloading can occur".
> > Umm, can all the laywers please just butt out? Every other open-source
> > package in the universe just relies on a licence file in the home
> > directory. You going to try and stop people downloading with clicking a
> > licence agreement? How you going to handle mirrors? Or are you not
> > going to mirror any more? What about Red Hat el al?
>
> Good point. Not exactly sure why this was suggested, but the American
> courts are *full* of cases where the plaintif said that they "didn't
> really know" something that should have been obvious.
Point 8 here I'm against also ... god, could you imagine having to "agree
to an open source license" each time you wanted to download it?
> I (and *all* of the steering committee) had pretty much the same
> reaction as you did at first. But some of us are closer to the US legal
> system, and see what silliness it can generate, so came around to
> thinking that there was something to be gained by license additions.
First off, why are we trying to set a precedent here for the open source
community? Have no other open source projects out there not looked at the
legal ramifications of their softare? Why are we more special then, say,
Linux(GPL), FreeBSD(Standard BSD), MySQL(GPL), KDE(GPL), etc as far as
licensing is concerned?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
From
The Hermit Hacker
Date:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
> >One issue that has always been a source of uncertainty - I think for
> >all of us - has been the license under which PostgreSQL is
> >distributed.
>
> Only an issue of uncertainty when people talk about changing it.
>
> As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would
> prefer to see it go GPL; this effectively prevents another company coming
> along and swallowing the major developers as a means of stifling further
> development. This latter tactic would probably never work, but it would be
> extermely disruptive.
Actually, with the BSD license as it is now, that isn't an issue either
... if someone where to come along and 'close the source', that license
change couldn't only be on future changes, not past ones ... as Vadim has
stated previously, he'd just go off and branch off the code and continue
open source ...
> >We've also found, through some rather extensive market
> >research
>
> Out of curiosity, who with & where?
Americans ... I do not believe they've done any market research in any
country out of the USofA, but I may be wrong here ...
> >This deficiency has two adverse affects. First, the contributing
> >developers are not afforded the protection of the exculpatory
> >language in "bold face."
>
> I agree this is a problem. Developers should be warned to always add some
> kind of text like this to all their public code - not just PG.
And any developer is more then welcome to add that to their patches when
they submit it ... just nobody has done it to date ...
> >In developing the new language, the resources of two intellectual
> >property law firms, one East Coast and one West Coast, were tapped.
>
> What about European (east and west), Japanese, and Australian?
hey, what about Canadian, where this project operates out of? It isn't an
American project, it is "Proudly Canadian" with a crack team of developers
around the world working on it ... by number(s), I would guess that the
majority of our developers are non-US citizens ...
> What is it? Does it even apply to me? [I am awaiting advice on this
> from my IP lawyer]
From my undertanding, it only applies to those states (US) that have
passed UCITA through legislature ... which, I believe, only accounts for 2
states right now out of 52, and zero other countries are even considering
it (but on that point I might be mistaken) ...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > 8) "To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license > > must be seen before downloading can occur". > > Umm, can all the laywers please just butt out? Every other open-source > > package in the universe just relies on a licence file in the home > > directory. You going to try and stop people downloading with clicking a > > licence agreement? How you going to handle mirrors? Or are you not > > going to mirror any more? What about Red Hat el al? > Good point. Not exactly sure why this was suggested, but the American > courts are *full* of cases where the plaintif said that they "didn't > really know" something that should have been obvious. My dos centavos of an alternate solution: Upon a sucessful install, and/or when opening template1, spit this out on screen. This means that to *use* the product, they must see the license at least once. > So the intent was, as stated, to *reinforce* what we already believe to > be true (including yourself). The recently-enacted UCITA law was > (afaict) intended to protect, perhaps wrongly imho, commercial software > companies from liability claims Even liability of their own making, and negligence... which might be why it was hotly contested, and possibly struck down soon.... is it written in such a way as to be enforcable if UTOCA is struck down? -Bop -- Brought to you from iBop the iMac, a MacOS, Win95, Win98, LinuxPPC machine, which is currently in MacOS land. Your bopping may vary.
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > However, the path to do this > isn't perfectly clear to anyone; this is the first concrete proposal we > have had which does try to address the issues we believe are already > here whether we want them or not. As someone else mentioned, why does postgresql have to break new ground? > > I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons: > > 1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without > > actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications > > must do so under the same licence. Submits to what or whom? > It is *not* trying to be GPL. GPL is essentially "You must make changes under the same licence". As far as I can see this licence is saying the same thing in a wishy-washy way. > It is trying to be BSD, while extending > liability protection to the current cast of developers, The liability exclusion clause I don't really have a problem with. It's the other bits that I'd concerned about. I ask again what does "submits" mean? Who does it mean to? The GPL has nailed down the definitions here. This language is so wide I'd defy you to get the same meaning from most people who read it. > The current license asks users to absolve the University of California > of any liability involving use of the Postgres source code. It does not > (currently) explicitly ask the same on behalf of the current developers > (including yourself ;) My guess is that if anyone is going to be sued (which I just don't believe, but anyway....), it wouldn't be based on the software, it would be based on what some developer has said on a mailing list. Given a working compiler the source code will do exactly what the source code says it should do. It's the statements the developers make in other forums which people will be relying on to know what the source code should do. > > 3) You talk about how wonderful the BSD licence is, then you really > > change the whole meaning of that licence. > > How? By changing what you are and aren't allowed to do with changes to the code. > I disagree, though we don't know UC's motivations for sure. imho the BSD > license is intended to protect UC from "deep pockets" lawsuits, while > preserving some credit for the original design team and the institution > which made it possible. If we accept the above, then why the restrictions on how you can change it? > Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is > at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory. The nice thing about the simple licence with no mention of legal territory is that it can be sensibly interpreted in each independant legal jurisdiction. If Virginia passes a law saying that any developer who releases software with bugs with licencing subject to their laws, shall be hung until they are dead, then I am not affected, even if one day I want to visit Virginia. That's extreme I know, but what do I as an Australian know abouth Virginia? For all I know they are a nazi regime. I just don't want anything I have to do with be in any way subject to the laws of that state. Why would I? My final statement would be this, YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE AN OPEN-SOURCE LICENCE STRONGER. YOU CAN NEVER MAKE IT WEAKER EVER AGAIN.
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
> by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
> *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
> contribute code which could make me a target for a lawsuit.
A further comment here: BSD and similar licenses have indeed been used
successfully for a couple of decades --- within a community of like-
minded hackers who wouldn't dream of suing each other in the first
place. Postgres is starting to get out into a colder and harder world.
To name just one unpleasant scenario: if PG continues to be as
successful as it has been, sooner or later Oracle will decide that we
are a threat to their continued world domination. Oracle have a
longstanding reputation for playing dirty pool when they feel it
necessary. It'd be awfully convenient for them if they could eliminate
the threat of Postgres with a couple of well-placed lawsuits hinging on
the weaknesses of the existing PG license. It'd hardly even cost them
anything, if they can sue individual developers who have no funds for
a major court case.
Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the
sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are
within its reach do need to worry about it.
I'm not opining here about the merits or weaknesses of Great Bridge's
proposal. (What I'd really like is to see some review from other
legal experts --- surely there are some people on these mailing lists
who can bring in their corporate legal departments to comment?) But
what we have here is a well-qualified lawyer telling us that we've got
some problems in the existing license. IMHO we'd be damned fools to
ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
a good defense mechanism.
regards, tom lane
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>IMHO we'd be damned fools to
>ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
>a good defense mechanism.
I think virtually everybody is happy with the extra disclaimer. It the
other parts that bother me.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
Tom Lane wrote: > > Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > > Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used > > by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And > > *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can > > contribute code which could make me a target for a lawsuit. > > A further comment here: BSD and similar licenses have indeed been used > successfully for a couple of decades --- within a community of like- > minded hackers who wouldn't dream of suing each other in the first > place. Postgres is starting to get out into a colder and harder world. > To name just one unpleasant scenario: if PG continues to be as > successful as it has been, sooner or later Oracle will decide that we > are a threat to their continued world domination. Oracle have a > longstanding reputation for playing dirty pool when they feel it > necessary. Does hiring private detectives to rifle through allies of Microsoft's trash count as dirty pool? ;-) I personally feel that analogies between PostgreSQL/Oracle and Linux/Windows NT are becoming more realistic. You'll know PostgreSQL has reached Prime Time when a CNBC reporter asks Larry Ellison about it the same way they ask Bill Gates about Linux (sorry Marc). > It'd be awfully convenient for them if they could eliminate > the threat of Postgres with a couple of well-placed lawsuits hinging on > the weaknesses of the existing PG license. It'd hardly even cost them > anything, if they can sue individual developers who have no funds for > a major court case. > > Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the > sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are > within its reach do need to worry about it. From a user's perspective, the only concern that I have is that it remains BSD-ish instead of GPL-ish. Commercial products built around database solutions often wander too vaguely into "GPL vs. LGPL" land to be safe, depending upon how "wired" they are in the product. For example, if PostgreSQL were GPL and libpq were LGPL, and I wanted to sell a product which required SPI or new types, would I have to release such source? With pure BSD the ambiguity is gone. The "intentions" mentioned in the proposal seemed GPLish even though the agreement seemed BSDish. > > I'm not opining here about the merits or weaknesses of Great Bridge's > proposal. (What I'd really like is to see some review from other > legal experts --- surely there are some people on these mailing lists > who can bring in their corporate legal departments to comment?) But > what we have here is a well-qualified lawyer telling us that we've got > some problems in the existing license. IMHO we'd be damned fools to > ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not > a good defense mechanism. My distaste for the profession grows with every day (just try and wade through corporate tax law). Its a pretty sorry state we're (Americans) in when guys who want to give out software *free* have to worry about the legal consequences...But, for what its worth, I agree with your conclusions :-( Mike Mascari
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
From
The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Note that I have no issues at all with the addition of the three BOLD
paragraphs ... it is the "under juristiction of the state of
Virginia" part that I have an issue with, as I've noticed, do those other
developers outside of the USofA ...
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> > Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
> > by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
> > *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
> > contribute code which could make me a target for a lawsuit.
>
> A further comment here: BSD and similar licenses have indeed been used
> successfully for a couple of decades --- within a community of like-
> minded hackers who wouldn't dream of suing each other in the first
> place. Postgres is starting to get out into a colder and harder world.
> To name just one unpleasant scenario: if PG continues to be as
> successful as it has been, sooner or later Oracle will decide that we
> are a threat to their continued world domination. Oracle have a
> longstanding reputation for playing dirty pool when they feel it
> necessary. It'd be awfully convenient for them if they could eliminate
> the threat of Postgres with a couple of well-placed lawsuits hinging on
> the weaknesses of the existing PG license. It'd hardly even cost them
> anything, if they can sue individual developers who have no funds for
> a major court case.
>
> Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the
> sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are
> within its reach do need to worry about it.
>
> I'm not opining here about the merits or weaknesses of Great Bridge's
> proposal. (What I'd really like is to see some review from other
> legal experts --- surely there are some people on these mailing lists
> who can bring in their corporate legal departments to comment?) But
> what we have here is a well-qualified lawyer telling us that we've got
> some problems in the existing license. IMHO we'd be damned fools to
> ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
> a good defense mechanism.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity.
> No, that's what the GPL does.
This is only an end user's reply but here goes...
And I feel alot more comfortable with the GPL as an end user. I *trust*
Richard Stallman...alot more than any johnny-come-lately. Peter's point
about the longevity of the Bersekeley licence is well taken.
> To my knowledge, the BSD license has been used in one form or another for
> at least 20 years and neither has any contributor ever been sued for
> liability, nor was there any court case that concluded that the BSD
> license is worth anything at all, nor has the developer or commercial
> acceptance of any product ever been affected by this "untight" license.
>
> > [To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license
> > must be seen before downloading can occur]
>
> That's funny...
Actually, that's frightening...more than a bit reminiscent of the old Bill.
I've invested *alot* of time in writing code that wraps around Pg.
Because of its OSS licence and Berkeley lineage.
Perhaps the end user should also have to enter a key to do the build.
And subsequently be pestered to register online for 'free updates'...
Maybe code could be worked in to reach out on the network to see if any
unauthorized binaries are in use.
> > The foregoing shall be governed by and construed under the laws of
> > the State of Virginia.
>
> The recurring theme throughout this email was that Great Bridge has
> apparently not appreciated that PostgreSQL land extends beyond the borders
> of the U.S. of A. Maybe your 32 focus groups in major U.S. cities wanted
> the license changed like this, but I'll bet lunch that 32 out of 32 focus
> groups in major European cities will look with extreme suspicion at
> anything with "laws of the State of XXX" attached to it.
> Until they realize that the laws of Virginia don't apply to them. Or to
> Canada, where hub.org is located these days.
Ah, The Old Dominion. In NYC we have some of the toughest gun laws in
the US. But they are largely ineffective (aside from blocking honest
citizens access to sporting firearms). You see all sorts of guns flow in
illegally from states that don't enforce their laws. Like Virginia.
The end result is that hospital ERs continue to treat gunshot wounds.
Rewriting the GPL or BSD licence sounds like reinventing the wheel...
Unless of course there is another agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SVCMC - Center for Behavioral Health
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Good tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
IS Coordinator / DBA Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by: PostgreSQL s l a c k w a r e FreeBSD:
RDBMS |---------- linux The Power To Serve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is > at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory. Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (because any licence change will be forever), you are subject to that law forever no matter how stupid it may get. For that reason I don't think you should be naming a jurisdiction. You don't know what that jurisdiction may do in the future. Now any normal corporation in this event could just change their licence to jurisdiction B which has more favourable laws. Open source can't change the licence ever unless you assign the rights to every bit of submitted code like RMS insists on for GNU code. If you must pick a jurisdiction pick Australia. We are *much* less litigious. :-) Actually, pick Sealand. They have no laws and no courts.
Chris Bitmead wrote: > Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the > USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the > courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the > postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (because any > licence change will be forever), you are subject to that law forever no > matter how stupid it may get. Besides, it effectively reduces the rights of any non-US developers to zero for sheer cost reasons, as they'd have to defend them in a Virginia (or at any rate US) court. And liabilities issues are far more likely to crop up in the US than anywhere else, where sueing for damages seems to be a profitable business. Sevo -- sevo@ip23.net
One thing to keep in mind: for a very long time, PostgreSQL was the *only* free ("free as in free speech, not free as
infree beer") DBMS. I told dozens of people to consider PostgreSQL instead of, say, MySQL, for that very reason.
Whicheverfree software licence you preferred, there was no real choice.
Now, it is no longer the case: as you have read here, MySQL is now fully GPL. The concurrency between the two DBMS will
increase.Since MySQL has a licence which is more hacker-friendly (it cannot be turned into a proprietary product),
PostgreSQL,which had (along with techincal strengthes) a big advantage with its licence, is now behind.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
From
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
Date:
-On [20000704 08:00], Thomas Lockhart (lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu) wrote: >> I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons: >> 1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without >> actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications >> must do so under the same licence. Submits to what or whom? > >It is *not* trying to be GPL. It is trying to be BSD, while extending >liability protection to the current cast of developers, who are (I'm >pretty sure) not covered in any of the wording of the UCB-generated >license. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR 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 AUTHOR 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. Seems pretty clear to me. ``In no event shall the author or contributors be liable for any...'' Anyways, why do people always have to start whole threads on -announce? Reply-to set. Please honour it. -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai> Malam bulan dipagar bintang makin indah jika dipandang bagai gadis beri senyuman pada bujang idaman...
Ned Lilly wrote: > > > Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has > > an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will > > only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state. > > Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not require > > a connection with the state and thereby gives somewhat greater > > assurance that UCITA will apply to all Postgres-related dealings, > > wherever they occur. Not here in Scotland, they won't. If people in the United States feel that United States law prevents them contributing to Open Source projects, that is a local problem which should be addressed locally - by lobbying their representatives to change the law. > > The fact that Great Bridge is based in > > Virginia is really a complete coincidence. I was initially agnostic regarding Great Bridge's involvement. Now I am not so sure. I would regard any variation from one of the Big Two open source licences an extremely retrograde step -- the more different licences there are out there, the more confusion there is, and the more room there is for sleight of hand like the soi-disant 'open' Motif licence. That's why my company uses the exact wording of the BSD licence for our products; if we were to tighten up at all it would be to adopt the GPL. If there is to be any change to the BSD licence currently used for Postgres I would suggest it be limited to: s/\(University of California\)/\1 and the developers listed in the HISTORY file/g Sincerely Simon Brooke -- Simon Brooke, Technical Director, Weft Technology Ltd -- http://www.weft.co.uk/ the weft is not just what binds the web: it is what makes it a web
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the > sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are > within its reach do need to worry about it. I grant you that, but as Chris pointed out the proposed change may actually have a net negative effect, namely bringing those outside the reach of the American legal system withing it, and at the same time not doing anything for other silly legal systems. I, and I think most others, don't have a problem with repeating the existing boilerplate with s/Regents of the University of California/various contributors/g. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > It is being proposed as an addition to the Postgres development effort. The Yet Another Open Source License issue is not to be played with. It will have to go to the OSI and RMS, Slashdot, all the usual suspects. And you know what it will say? "PostgreSQL changes to hand-crafted license dictated by corporate interests", no matter how much anyone denies that. There are enough open source licenses out there. Use one. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> el día Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:13:12 +1000, escribió: >As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would >prefer to see it go GPL; I agree with this. (altough is not public domain, it's copywrigth'ed, well copyleft'ed). btw, if you change the license in this way, is =not= BSD anymore, how you will call this new license ? PPL (Postgres Public License) ? PBML (Postgres BSD Modified License) ? sergio
Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
From
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød)
Date:
Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com> writes: > We've also found, through some rather extensive market > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like > Mozilla, etc. That depends on what your market is - for businesses who wants to be able to hide source, yes. For businesses who use it, being sure the source is available is the best - which the GPL guarantees. BSD gives the middle man more freedom to screw the end user ;) > What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the > existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place - > protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that > the code stays open source in perpetuity. GPL would solve this - the main advantage of BSDish licenses is you can go closed source if you want to. Now, I don't advocate a change in license - my main consern is "there are enough licenses in the world". I think the "each package one license" is a bad trend. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
> That depends on what your market is - for businesses who wants to be
> able to hide source, yes. For businesses who use it, being sure the
> source is available is the best - which the GPL guarantees. BSD gives
> the middle man more freedom to screw the end user ;)
Well, we all want more freedom, right? (please note sarcastic tone ;)
> > What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the
> > existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place -
> > protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that
> > the code stays open source in perpetuity.
> GPL would solve this - the main advantage of BSDish licenses is you
> can go closed source if you want to.
I imagine that RH has extensive ongoing internal discussions of
licenses. Is there a "company opinion" that the main advantage of BSD is
that you can go closed source?
imho an advantage of BSD is that there is no question that you can use
the open source anywhere you want, at any time, mixed with any other
code you want. For some, that might be a "main advantage"; for others, a
"don't care". Can't really see it as a negative from my PoV.
> Now, I don't advocate a change in license - my main consern is "there
> are enough licenses in the world". I think the "each package one
> license" is a bad trend.
Me too. PostgreSQL has been distributed with a plain-vanilla BSD license
forever. We would like to keep it that way. But BSD doesn't say anything
about developers outside of the UC system, so in the long run we
probably need to do something to address that. And I don't know about
any BSD licenses or existing offshoots which do that (though I haven't
looked much beyond the packages I already know). istm that in most cases
"companies with lawyers" go for something much tighter and more
restrictive than BSD or the recently suggested modification.
Regards.
- Thomas
Ned, Thanks for inviting the community to participate in this discussion. I wonder, though, if you might like to invite the participation of a wider audience. While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot. As for the particulars of your proposal, I'd like to suggest, and I see others agree, that it would still be premature to table the discussion of GPL vs. BSD style licensing. If for no other reason than if not now, when? There seem to be two primary objectives here: (1) protect contributers from liability. (2) maintain the code as open source. I don't really understand liability issues or how they relate to the GPL (or any other license for that matter). I'm certainly 100% in favor of protecting PostgreSQL developers from court claims, of course. So I'm not going to chime in about liability issues. One objection to the use of the GPL has been that it has never been tested in court. That may soon change. See http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/. Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more "free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition? > ...we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it > more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the > user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with > the code. -Ned Lilly To me, it's the difference between the freedom of anarchy, and the freedom afforded by good government. Licenses are inherently restrictive. That's the whole point of having them. This is true even for BSD style licenses. So the question is not "do you ask the users of your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is just navel gazing mumbo jumbo. I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community" prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how this conclusion was reached? > We've also found, through some rather extensive market > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like > Mozilla, etc. -Ned Lilly I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps they need some education. I would also submit that that the manner in which a survey was conducted could greatly influence it's own results. Q: "Do you prefer a GPL or BSD style license?" A: "What's the difference?" Q: "A BSD style license gives you more flexibility in how you administer changes you might make to the software." A: "Well, then BSD of course." Nevermind that this same business might be running half of its back end services using GPL'd software. How about "Would you like to know that you can take advantage of contributions made to this software by anyone working on it worldwide?", or "Would you like a *guarantee* that the core development team won't duck tail and make you start paying for certain improvements?" I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intentions. I'm just saying that the only *guarantee* of good intentions is the license associated with the software. Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd software. -Ron-
just to curtail this while thread to a certain point ... switching the license to GPL is *not* on the table, nor has it every been, nor will it ever be ... On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ron Peterson wrote: > Ned, > > Thanks for inviting the community to participate in this discussion. I > wonder, though, if you might like to invite the participation of a wider > audience. While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about > all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves > the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest > that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot. > > As for the particulars of your proposal, I'd like to suggest, and I see > others agree, that it would still be premature to table the discussion > of GPL vs. BSD style licensing. If for no other reason than if not now, > when? > > There seem to be two primary objectives here: (1) protect contributers > from liability. (2) maintain the code as open source. > > I don't really understand liability issues or how they relate to the GPL > (or any other license for that matter). I'm certainly 100% in favor of > protecting PostgreSQL developers from court claims, of course. So I'm > not going to chime in about liability issues. > > One objection to the use of the GPL has been that it has never been > tested in court. That may soon change. See > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/. > > Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more > "free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone > may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't > anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition? > > > ...we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it > > more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the > > user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with > > the code. > -Ned Lilly > > To me, it's the difference between the freedom of anarchy, and the > freedom afforded by good government. Licenses are inherently > restrictive. That's the whole point of having them. This is true even > for BSD style licenses. So the question is not "do you ask the users of > your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The > question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of > your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is > just navel gazing mumbo jumbo. > > I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community" > prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how > this conclusion was reached? > > > We've also found, through some rather extensive market > > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling > > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like > > Mozilla, etc. > -Ned Lilly > > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps > they need some education. > > I would also submit that that the manner in which a survey was conducted > could greatly influence it's own results. > > Q: "Do you prefer a GPL or BSD style license?" > A: "What's the difference?" > Q: "A BSD style license gives you more flexibility in how you administer > changes you might make to the software." > A: "Well, then BSD of course." > > Nevermind that this same business might be running half of its back end > services using GPL'd software. > > How about "Would you like to know that you can take advantage of > contributions made to this software by anyone working on it worldwide?", > or "Would you like a *guarantee* that the core development team won't > duck tail and make you start paying for certain improvements?" > > I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intentions. I'm just saying that > the only *guarantee* of good intentions is the license associated with > the software. > > Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd > software. > > -Ron- > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
* The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> [000705 12:03] wrote: > > just to curtail this while thread to a certain point ... switching the > license to GPL is *not* on the table, nor has it every been, nor will it > ever be ... Good to hear, I was getting worried for a bit that the code might become uselessly encumbered by a non-opensource friendly license. Ignore the hype, keep the code _free_. thanks, -Alfred
Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
From
selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov
Date:
Simon Brooke wrote: > Ned Lilly wrote: > > > > > Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has > > > an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will > > > only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state. > > > Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not require > > > a connection with the state and thereby gives somewhat greater > > > assurance that UCITA will apply to all Postgres-related dealings, > > > wherever they occur. > > Not here in Scotland, they won't. If people in the United States feel > that United States law prevents them contributing to Open Source > projects, that is a local problem which should be addressed locally - by > lobbying their representatives to change the law. Lobbying is an art of influencing representatives to cater for someone else's needs. This is how the UCITA proposal emerged in the first pace: through an extensive lobbying by those badly reputed industries who started losing in the marketplace to open source/free software, or became apprehensive of the possibility of such losses. Aside from the money and other forces involved in lobbying, the reasoning in support of UCITA has a lot of brainwashing potential: why should one allow free software to exist at all, let alone without liability by default, in the same time when the free health care, free police and free money market are banned from existence. This is, I guess, the kind of uniformity sought by the UCITA -- what else does that "U" stand for? With that said, how likely do you think is that all software developers of Maryland together, even backed up by all law professors and practicing lawyers, will be able to overturn the decision to adopt UCITA by simply annoying their representatives? Considering that most lawmakers and lobbyists of the World live in a 20-mile wide area in Virginia and Maryland centered around the U.S. Capitol, and that the economy of these states depends on the lobbying industry more than Jamaica on tourism, I wouldn't bet my lunch. BTW, I don't think that UCITA has terribly good chances of becoming the United States law. While many states are still evaluating the proposal, a few others including Illinois, where I happen to live, have declined to even consider it for evaluation. Now picture this: in a not so distant future you visit a web site whose title page says: "Residents of Europe, Canada, Illinois and other free countries, please go ahead. Residents of Virginia and Maryland, please kindly follow <a>this link<a>. Your local law requires us to harass you some more before you can download. Avoiding this harassment by making an inappropriate selection voids our responsibility. How's that as an alternative to a pop-up license statement? I wonder what Dilbert has to say about this. --Gene
Ron Peterson wrote:
> your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The
> question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of
> your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is
> just navel gazing mumbo jumbo.
Good points - alot of. Just that the above has a little flaw.
We're not discussing "what concessions" the END-USER has to
make before USING it. We ask "what restrictions" does a
license apply to a DEVELOPER?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Ron Peterson wrote: > While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about > all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves > the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest > that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot. Umm. Let's _not_ drag slashdot into this. I think any of us could easily predict what the slashdot consensus would be (hint: less free equals bad). And it would be bad publicity for pgsql. > Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more > "free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone > may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't > anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition? I can't see any cause for worry. If you want to use a closed source database there are plenty of very good products out there. How would yet another closed source dbms compete with open-source postgres? The X consortium recently tried to make X less free. The community took the most recent free X and continued development. Basicly the X consortium were beaten into submission. > I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community" > prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how > this conclusion was reached? Some businesses get concerned about the licencing implications and how it might effect their plans. For example I was working for a company that wanted to build TV set-top boxes for internet access. Maybe they don't want the hassle of conforming to the GPL. Of course mostly these business concerns are pretty much ill-founded. > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps > they need some education. Are you volunteering?
Chris Bitmead wrote: > > > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps > > they need some education. > > Are you volunteering? Of course. As the systems administrator for my company, I feel it's my responsibility to inform the principals who run this company about software licensing issues that may affect them. I would hope that anyone with similar duties at any other company would feel the same way. I would like to future proof any technology investments we make to the greatest degree possible. If I say "let's build our project management database using xyz", I would like to assure anyone buying into this proposal that I have some confidence in the future direction xyz will take. The current licensing debate surrounding PostgreSQL has greatly diminished my confidence in it's long term viability as an open source project. I may be very wrong here, but I really don't feel like taking unnecessary chances. The best argument so far as to how a BSD style license will maintain PostgreSQL's viability as an open source project is that if someone take the code proprietary, someone else can fork the code and continue development as an open source project. This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were lost? I believe developers assurances about their desire to maintain PostgreSQL as an open source project are sincere. But I am not going to continue investing my time in PostgreSQL unless those assurances are backed by contractually binding verbage. ________________________ Ron Peterson rpeterson@yellowbank.com
At 10:19 6/07/00 -0400, Ron Peterson wrote:
>
>This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for
>the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people
>who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did
>it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the
>project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were
>lost?
>
>I believe developers assurances about their desire to maintain
>PostgreSQL as an open source project are sincere. But I am not going to
>continue investing my time in PostgreSQL unless those assurances are
>backed by contractually binding verbage.
Short of employing the core developers directly, and giving them good
enough conditions to ensure that they stay with you, I don't think you can
acheieve your ends. No license change will help. All a licence does is
tells you what *you* can do with the software.
GPL or BSD, if someone buys up the core developers, their replacements will
have a steep learning curve. Your only choice here is to invest local
talent from your company in the development project so that if the core
developers do leave, then there is a higher chance of a quick uptake.
Or have I missed something? Did you have some kind of "contractually
binding verbage" in mind?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Ron Peterson wrote: > This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take > for the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the > people who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How > long did it take before the community at large developed any > confidence in the project's viability? How much talent was lost? > How many ideas were lost? Huh? When? I, and several others, picked up Postgres95 from the University of California at Berkeley, following the graduate studies of Andrew and Jolly, in 1996 ... there has been no copyright change since then (wish someone had mentioned soon that alther we didn't do any copyright changes, Berkeley did *sigh*) ... Prior to that, Postgres95 was a graduate project, that, if I recall correctly, Andrea and Jolly took on to move Postgres from a PostQuel based to an SQL based server, but that part of the history I may be wrong on ... Since '96, there has only been one development effort on PostgreSQL ... that I'm aware of ...
Philip Warner wrote: > > At 10:19 6/07/00 -0400, Ron Peterson wrote: > > > >This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for > >the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people > >who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did > >it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the > >project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were > >lost? > > > >I believe developers assurances about their desire to maintain > >PostgreSQL as an open source project are sincere. But I am not going to > >continue investing my time in PostgreSQL unless those assurances are > >backed by contractually binding verbage. > > Short of employing the core developers directly, and giving them good > enough conditions to ensure that they stay with you, I don't think you can > acheieve your ends. No license change will help. All a licence does is > tells you what *you* can do with the software. > > GPL or BSD, if someone buys up the core developers, their replacements will > have a steep learning curve. Your only choice here is to invest local > talent from your company in the development project so that if the core > developers do leave, then there is a higher chance of a quick uptake. > > Or have I missed something? Did you have some kind of "contractually > binding verbage" in mind? Technically, you're right, of course. There are no absolutes here, just probabilities. Developers will come and go in either case. But in these days of multi-billion dollar mergers and acquisisitons, I would prefer team as a whole be working under a license that would discourage them from taking the code private. Losing any of the developers would be a loss. But losing a significant fraction of them could be tragic. By the way, I hope I'm not coming across as saying "thanks for all your hard work, now go eat peanuts." I have great appreciation for what PostgreSQL has become, and for the developers who have made it so. That is why I keep at this tired argument. I would like to know that this project will continue in a manner that benefits the little people, not just big corporate commercial interests. Perhaps some company _would_ like to pay the developers mucho dinero to continue PostgreSQL development. In fact I really hope so. I would just like to know that if that happened, there would be no obstacle to returning privately developed code to the public domain. Great Bridge has announced their intention to sell both products and services. What are the products? I'm going to bow out of this discussion. (applause!) Sorry if it sounds old and tired to the veterans among us. I'm a little green in the gills and I appreciate your sufferance. ________________________ Ron Peterson rpeterson@yellowbank.com
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Ron Peterson wrote:
> By the way, I hope I'm not coming across as saying "thanks for all
> your hard work, now go eat peanuts." I have great appreciation for
> what PostgreSQL has become, and for the developers who have made it
> so. That is why I keep at this tired argument. I would like to know
> that this project will continue in a manner that benefits the little
> people, not just big corporate commercial interests.
There are enough of us here who are commit'd to Open Source in general,
and PostgreSQL specifically, that that won't happen.
> Great Bridge has announced their intention to sell both products and
> services. What are the products?
>
> I'm going to bow out of this discussion. (applause!) Sorry if it
> sounds old and tired to the veterans among us. I'm a little green in
> the gills and I appreciate your sufferance.
>
> ________________________
> Ron Peterson
> rpeterson@yellowbank.com
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Ron Peterson wrote: > > > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps > > > they need some education. > > > > Are you volunteering? > > Of course. As the systems administrator for my company, One company down. 99,999,999 to go. > The best argument so far as to how a BSD style license will maintain > PostgreSQL's viability as an open source project is that if someone take > the code proprietary, someone else can fork the code and continue > development as an open source project. > > This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for > the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people > who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did > it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the > project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were > lost? Are you saying that Illustra destroyed the original postgres project? I don't buy that. Postgres back then wasn't an open-source project, it was a university project. The internet wasn't widely used, there was no wide interest in improving the code.
Chris ... kill this thread :) Ron and I talked in the background and I
guess he got confused by Bruce's HISTORY in his book ... he got the
impression that things got "bounced around" a few times, and didn't
realize that it was all fluid from the days of Jolly/Andrew into us, with
a slow down before I kickstarted things in '96 ...
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> Ron Peterson wrote:
> > > > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps
> > > > they need some education.
> > >
> > > Are you volunteering?
> >
> > Of course. As the systems administrator for my company,
>
> One company down. 99,999,999 to go.
>
> > The best argument so far as to how a BSD style license will maintain
> > PostgreSQL's viability as an open source project is that if someone take
> > the code proprietary, someone else can fork the code and continue
> > development as an open source project.
> >
> > This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for
> > the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people
> > who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did
> > it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the
> > project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were
> > lost?
>
> Are you saying that Illustra destroyed the original postgres project? I
> don't buy that. Postgres back then wasn't an open-source project, it was
> a university project. The internet wasn't widely used, there was no wide
> interest in improving the code.
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Greetings! Ron Peterson <rpeterson@yellowbank.com> writes: > Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd > software. > > -Ron- > > As would mine. The major cost associated with any software project is the migration/learning curve time. Effective guarantees that this time investment will have a long payoff period (i.e. there will be no forced upgrades, mandatory incompatibilities, binary/linked library legacy issues, proprietary usurpation, and disappearance of the product altogether) are critical to the decision to begin putting software into production. As I see it, the only realistic objection to the GPL comes from those who want to sell copies of the software, or software products based upon it. Most people in the "business community" have no such interest, but just want to use postgresql to get their work done. I'm not saying that a commercial interest in selling software is illegitimate. I'm just saying that we ought to call a spade a spade, and recognize that turning away from the GPL is in the interest of (some) developers, not the customers/end users. Thank you all for your work on postgreSQL! -- Camm Maguire camm@enhanced.com ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
> As I see it, the only realistic objection to the GPL comes from those > who want to sell copies of the software, or software products based > upon it. Most people in the "business community" have no such > interest, but just want to use postgresql to get their work done. I'm > not saying that a commercial interest in selling software is > illegitimate. I'm just saying that we ought to call a spade a spade, > and recognize that turning away from the GPL is in the interest of > (some) developers, not the customers/end users. IMHO, adding restrictions for (some) developers is not in the interest of any one, as it reduces opportunity and choice for both developer and end user. - Andrew
Camm Maguire writes: > As would mine. The major cost associated with any software project is > the migration/learning curve time. Effective guarantees that this > time investment will have a long payoff period (i.e. there will be no > forced upgrades, mandatory incompatibilities, binary/linked library > legacy issues, proprietary usurpation, and disappearance of the > product altogether) are critical to the decision to begin putting > software into production. I don't see your point. The current BSD license does, all in all, allow you to do whatever you want with the product. So there will be no: * forced upgrades (No one can force you to upgrade.) * mandatory incompatibilities (No one can mandate anything, you can fix everything yourself.) * disappearance of the product (If you have the source, you have it and can continue to develop it.) You seem to be believing that with the BSD license someone can take over the product and retroactively re-license it. This is false on both counts: No one can take it over unless he buys out the copyright of each contributor (but no open source license prevents that), and no one can revoke the currently granted license. (Well, there is a faction of legal experts that believe that gratis licenses are revokable, but then every such license would be affected.) > As I see it, the only realistic objection to the GPL comes from those > who want to sell copies of the software, or software products based > upon it. The major pragmatic objection to the GPL license has been that it creates legal hassles which we currently don't have. If we allow anyone to use the product at will then we don't have anything to enforce. If we cover our own work with a bunch of conditions then we always have to worry about what we can do with the code and what we can't. > Most people in the "business community" have no such interest, But some do and there's no point in stopping them. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden