Thread: PostgreSQL & the BSD License
Hi ...
PostgreSQL, 4 years ago, became a Proudly Canadian Open Source Project,
with developers around the world (16 out of ~21 contributing developers
being non-US citizens). Over those 4 years, we've had various people pop
up suggesting "we should be under a GPL license", to which the almost
instantaneous reply being "over our combined dead bodies".
Everyone has their own opinions about both the GPL and the BSD licenses,
with the religious arguments between the two being as "interesting" as
those between Linux and FreeBSD ...
We all have our preferences, and we can argue those until we are blue in
the face, but that would make little differences. PostgreSQL falls under
the BSD license, and that will not change ... it is the license that
Berkeley imposed on Postgres from day one, it is the license that Jolly
and Andrew handed the code over to us under, and it is the one that
PostgreSQL itself will impose until "the end of time".
Recently, Landmark/Great Bridge sent us a proposed revision to our
existing license that, from what I can tell, has two paragraphs that
pretty instantly none of the non-US developers felt comfortable with ...
and that I, personally, could never agree to.
I've read, and re-read, this license since the first time I saw it ... I
like the extension of the 'liability/warranty' sections to encompass "all
developers" vs it just encompassing "University of Berkeley", and am
shocked that we never thought of this before, as well as pleased that our
new community members (L/GB) took the time to contribute this ...
Included below is what I would like to replace our current COPYRIGHT file
with, unless any of the developers have any serious concerns about it
and/or I've mis-read something in it that "loses" the BSD License appeal
to it. I do not believe that *extending* the license reduces/blemishes
the BSD openness of the license ... maybe I'm wrong ...
IMHO, the current COPYRIGHT we have is/was only good until 1996, when we
took over the code ... what is included doesn't change the terms or
meaning of the COPYRIGHT, it only extends it to cover those developing the
code from '96 on ...
I wish to publicly thank Landmark/Great Bridge for providing the basis for
these changes, as their contribution has provided us with a direction to
focus on, instead of the usual "we need to change the license" that
happens bi-yearly, and then dies off with no change ...
I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
===========================================================================
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) 1994-6 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:
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.
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.
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Hi ... > > PostgreSQL, 4 years ago, became a Proudly Canadian Open Source Project, > with developers around the world (16 out of ~21 contributing developers > being non-US citizens). Over those 4 years, we've had various people pop > up suggesting "we should be under a GPL license", to which the almost > instantaneous reply being "over our combined dead bodies". > ... > =========================================================================== > > 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) 1994-6 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: > > 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. > > 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. Perfect. Mike Mascari
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
> something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I think
this is *way* premature.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see > > something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ... > > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I think > this is *way* premature. No ... what I posted as a replacement for our current COPYRIGHT is the *base* that nobody disagrees with ... I don't care if everyone wants to argue til their are blue in the face for the next 6 months concerning the two paras that were drop'd, we can always add them in later, its just removing stuff that is a pita ... ... hell, I'll create a pgsql-license mailing list if ppl want, just to discuss those two paras and centralize the discussions ... From the feeling I got from those that have posted to the lists, what is in the one I posted last night is agreeable to *everyone*, both American and non-American, since it doesn't change the gist of the BSD license, it only extends the umbrella of warranty/liability over all of us ...
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > > > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can > > > see something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ... > > > > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I > > think this is *way* premature. > > <snip> > From the feeling I got from those that have posted to the lists, what >is in the one I posted last night is agreeable to *everyone*, both >American and non-American, since it doesn't change the gist of the BSD >license, it only extends the umbrella of warranty/liability over all >of us ... > IMO, it is difficult to say that this is a "BSD license" unless there is a general agreement by those who use the (current) BSD license to adopt it as *the* BSD license. I fear that unilaterally changing the license, even if that change is deemed necessary and correct, may cause unnecessary confusion, and tends toward a competitive rather than cooperative atmosphere for standard setting. If the BSD license is flawed, then most projects using it should logically want to change it along with everyone else. But without consulting with/working with other major BSD license users, it is possible that postgesql will face a situation where it will have to consider changing it's "PostgreSQL license" to a new "BSD" license because the other BSD-license users have established a standard license that adds to or modifies the "Postgres license". This comment is in line with several others that have voiced concern about "yet another license". It simply seems more productive to proactively build a consensus for a new standard by including other BSD license users in discussions sooner rather than later. Unless, of course, the license is so flawed that a new license needs to be implemented immediately, without a such a larger and inclusive discussion. Yet, the license has been flawed for years - and other BSD-license users are in the same boat - wouldn't it be in their best interest to adopt an interim license also? John ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... all that is being proposed *at this time* is to add in coverage for the period *since* '96 and extend that coverage to include *all* developers, not just the Univesrity of California ... Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual developers ... If ppl feel that neither a) or b) above aren't considered flaws, then let us leave well enough alone ... The wording in the 'DEVELOPERS' section of what I sent out last night is a little more verbose, so we could cut it down to be exactly the same as the BSD one, and 'trim the fat' ... so that all we are "changing" is "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" to "DEVELOPERS", and leaving the rest of the wording completely intact ... ? My personal feeling is that if the BSD license itself was so flawed, there are at least another dozen projects out there that deal with commercial enterprises on a larger scale then we do that would have done changes also ... I don't want to change the wording, I would just like to see it extended to cover the ppl that are actually doing development and not just UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ... make sense? or are we just sitting here discussing changes to a license that doesn't need changing? On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Daniels wrote: > >On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can > > > > see something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ... > > > > > > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I > > > think this is *way* premature. > > > > <snip> > > > >From the feeling I got from those that have posted to the lists, what > >is in the one I posted last night is agreeable to *everyone*, both > >American and non-American, since it doesn't change the gist of the BSD > >license, it only extends the umbrella of warranty/liability over all > >of us ... > > > > IMO, it is difficult to say that this is a "BSD license" unless there is a > general agreement by those who use the (current) BSD license to adopt it as > *the* BSD license. I fear that unilaterally changing the license, even if > that change is deemed necessary and correct, may cause unnecessary > confusion, and tends toward a competitive rather than cooperative atmosphere > for standard setting. > > If the BSD license is flawed, then most projects using it should logically > want to change it along with everyone else. But without consulting > with/working with other major BSD license users, it is possible that > postgesql will face a situation where it will have to consider changing it's > "PostgreSQL license" to a new "BSD" license because the other BSD-license > users have established a standard license that adds to or modifies the > "Postgres license". > > This comment is in line with several others that have voiced concern about > "yet another license". It simply seems more productive to proactively build > a consensus for a new standard by including other BSD license users in > discussions sooner rather than later. > > Unless, of course, the license is so flawed that a new license needs to be > implemented immediately, without a such a larger and inclusive discussion. > Yet, the license has been flawed for years - and other BSD-license users are > in the same boat - wouldn't it be in their best interest to adopt an interim > license also? > > John > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>Recently, Landmark/Great Bridge sent us a proposed revision to our >existing license that, from what I can tell, has two paragraphs that >pretty instantly none of the non-US developers felt comfortable with ... >and that I, personally, could never agree to. Sorry to jump in , but which two paragraphs were these and why were they objectionable ?
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>>>> I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
>>>> something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
>>
>> What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I think
>> this is *way* premature.
> No ... what I posted as a replacement for our current COPYRIGHT is the
> *base* that nobody disagrees with ... I don't care if everyone wants to
> argue til their are blue in the face for the next 6 months concerning the
> two paras that were drop'd, we can always add them in later, its just
> removing stuff that is a pita ...
It sounded a lot like you were trying to say "this is what we're going
to do, end of discussion". I take it that wasn't what you meant, but
it sure read that way from here ...
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> >>>> I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can see
> >>>> something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
> >>
> >> What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I think
> >> this is *way* premature.
>
> > No ... what I posted as a replacement for our current COPYRIGHT is the
> > *base* that nobody disagrees with ... I don't care if everyone wants to
> > argue til their are blue in the face for the next 6 months concerning the
> > two paras that were drop'd, we can always add them in later, its just
> > removing stuff that is a pita ...
>
> It sounded a lot like you were trying to say "this is what we're going
> to do, end of discussion". I take it that wasn't what you meant, but
> it sure read that way from here ...
The more I think on this, the less I'm sure that we *should* be changing
anything though ... why hasn't FreeBSD (a primarily US based, BSD
licensed, Open Source Project) changed it? Has NetBSD? OpenBSD? Why is
it good enough for them, and all of their commercial clients and
affiliates, but not good enough for us? Actually, just took a look at the
COPYRIGHT that comes with FreeBSD ... shit, wait a second ... didn't the
BSD COPYRIGHT just *have* a change? ... <insert explicitive here> ...
Ya, there was a recent change, that can be seen at:
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ... but, if
you look at the FreeBSD COPYRIGHT in /usr/src, I'm guessing that we've
never kept up with *any* of the changes to the BSD COPYRIGHT ... we just
used the one that came with Postgres95 originally and assumed that
Berkeley never changed it ...
===================
# $FreeBSD: src/COPYRIGHT,v 1.4 1999/09/05 21:33:47 obrien Exp $
# @(#)COPYRIGHT 8.2 (Berkeley) 3/21/94
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and
4.4BSD-Lite
Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS 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 REGENTS 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.
========================
there is more dealing with X and whatnot ... the ftp URL I gave above
removes clause 3 in the above:
=========================
> more README.Impt.License.Change
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
============================
From reading the above COPYRIGHT in FreeBSD, it sounds like our version is
out of date with the version everyone else is using, and that the changes
we are discussing here have already been discussed and made, just nobody
told us ...
>I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is >flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright >ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF >CALIFORNIA" ... all that is being proposed *at this time* is to add in >coverage for the period *since* '96 and extend that coverage to >include *all* developers, not just the Univesrity of California ... > Plus the language about USE IN TRADE, LOSS OF ENJOYMENT, INFRINGEMENT, etc. This make three categories of changes: 1) extent the term to 2000, 2) cover all developers, 3) cover more types of possible liability. I agree with and understand your concern about terming the current BSD license "flawed". That term should certainly not be associated with the objective and spirit of the BSD license - and the BSD license itsself has met those objectives for many years. How about the license needs to be "updated?" >Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that >still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual >developers ... > >If ppl feel that neither a) or b) above aren't considered flaws, then let >us leave well enough alone ... > >The wording in the 'DEVELOPERS' section of what I sent out last night is a >little more verbose, so we could cut it down to be exactly the same as the >BSD one, and 'trim the fat' ... so that all we are "changing" is >"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" to "DEVELOPERS", and leaving the rest of the >wording completely intact ... ? > >My personal feeling is that if the BSD license itself was so flawed, there >are at least another dozen projects out there that deal with commercial >enterprises on a larger scale then we do that would have done changes also >... I don't want to change the wording, I would just like to see it >extended to cover the ppl that are actually doing development and not just >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ... > >make sense? or are we just sitting here discussing changes to a license >that doesn't need changing? > Well, I agree that logically the license *does* need to be "updated" and it might make sense to update the types of liabilities and other parts of the license also. This is probably best done in stages, first notifying other BSD projects that PostgreSQL will update the BSD license (on July xx) by extending coverage to all developers and extending the term of coverage to 2000, and inviting them to do the same. (It only makes sense for them to do likewise) Some might choose to cover "contributors" instead of "developers" or other minor changes but I would think that such a limited and straightforward changes could still qualify as a "BSD license" At the same time, postgresql could contact people from other major BSD projects asking them to review the language that covers additional potential liabilities. This review should be made know to all BSD projects with some letter or email explaining that any ultimate or proposed changes would be as conservative as possible and that a draft will be made avaialable on xxxxx date for public review. The major BSD projects should be committed to adopting whatever results from this process as the "BSD license" or "revised/updated BSD license standard" or what have you so that there is no backtracking, forking, or just plain waste of people's time and resources. Obviously this should all be done in the most practical and efficient possible way. A working committee of a few people from different major projects who collect info and set deadlines/milestones might need to be formed. In the end, it may be that everyone decides that change is unnecessary, or too problematic, but everyone will know that the issues have been properly addressed and that all opinions have been heard and considered. I know that this seems like more trouble than it should be, and that the license issue seems to balloon into an unmanageable beast, but IMO, it really needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way for all but the most minor or perfunctual changes (adding years to the copyright, for example, does not change the license). It is made more difficult by the fact that there is no central source for administering/updating the license (as the GPL as the FSF). John ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
The Hermit Hacker writes: > I've read, and re-read, this license since the first time I saw it ... I > like the extension of the 'liability/warranty' sections to encompass "all > developers" vs it just encompassing "University of Berkeley", and am > shocked that we never thought of this before, That's not true. I recall several separate occasions this was brought up in the past. But anyway... I support the spirit of your suggestion, but just a couple of ideas: 1) The copyright notice from the current developers should come first. It should read something like: "PostgreSQL ... Copyright 2000 whoever Contains code from Postgres95, which is subject to the following conditions: Copyright 1996 UCB ..." 2) "various contributors (as identified in HISTORY)" -- Don't do that. What if someone forks the project and renames HISTORY to PASTPRESENTANDFUTURE? Use something like "all contributors". Also note that the HISTORY file doesn't actually identify the contributors sufficiently. 3) Use the same disclaimer that the UCB used, unless you have a good reason to change the wording. 4) "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." -- This is not enforceable. If you want to get at this point (for which I see no reason), use something like GPL section 5. 5) There also should be a mention that some parts of the distribution may be subject to other conditions, which are identified near that "part". > =========================================================================== > > > 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) 1994-6 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: > > 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. > > 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. > > > > > -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
as mentioned by another person, it appears that the problem isn't with the copyright, the problem is us :( BSD *has* already done all the revisons to the copyright, we've just never upgraded ours to match theirs ... I posted, in another thread, a proposed updated COPYRIGHT file based off of http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html ... On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The Hermit Hacker writes: > > > I've read, and re-read, this license since the first time I saw it ... I > > like the extension of the 'liability/warranty' sections to encompass "all > > developers" vs it just encompassing "University of Berkeley", and am > > shocked that we never thought of this before, > > That's not true. I recall several separate occasions this was brought up > in the past. But anyway... > > I support the spirit of your suggestion, but just a couple of ideas: > > 1) The copyright notice from the current developers should come first. It > should read something like: > > "PostgreSQL ... Copyright 2000 whoever > > Contains code from Postgres95, which is subject to the following > conditions: > > Copyright 1996 UCB ..." > > 2) "various contributors (as identified in HISTORY)" -- Don't do that. > What if someone forks the project and renames HISTORY to > PASTPRESENTANDFUTURE? Use something like "all contributors". Also note > that the HISTORY file doesn't actually identify the contributors > sufficiently. > > 3) Use the same disclaimer that the UCB used, unless you have a good > reason to change the wording. > > 4) "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." -- This is not enforceable. If you want to get at this point > (for which I see no reason), use something like GPL section 5. > > 5) There also should be a mention that some parts of the distribution may > be subject to other conditions, which are identified near that "part". > > > > > =========================================================================== > > > > > > 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) 1994-6 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: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Peter Eisentraut Sernanders v�g 10:115 > peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala > http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Ya, there was a recent change, that can be seen at: > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ... but, if > you look at the FreeBSD COPYRIGHT in /usr/src, I'm guessing that we've > never kept up with *any* of the changes to the BSD COPYRIGHT ... we just > used the one that came with Postgres95 originally and assumed that > Berkeley never changed it ... So lets just swap to the freebsd licence and be done with it.
John Daniels wrote: > This is probably best done in stages, first notifying other BSD projects > that PostgreSQL will update the BSD license (on July xx) by extending > coverage to all developers and extending the term of coverage to 2000, and > inviting them to do the same. (It only makes sense for them to do likewise) It doesn't make sense because it appears that they did this a long time ago. It is us who needs to catch up and go to the freebsd licence.
> The more I think on this, the less I'm sure that we *should* be changing
> anything though ... why hasn't FreeBSD (a primarily US based, BSD
> licensed, Open Source Project) changed it? Has NetBSD? OpenBSD? Why is
> it good enough for them, and all of their commercial clients and
> affiliates, but not good enough for us? Actually, just took a look at the
> COPYRIGHT that comes with FreeBSD ... shit, wait a second ... didn't the
> BSD COPYRIGHT just *have* a change? ... <insert explicitive here> ...
>
> Ya, there was a recent change, that can be seen at:
> ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ... but, if
> you look at the FreeBSD COPYRIGHT in /usr/src, I'm guessing that we've
> never kept up with *any* of the changes to the BSD COPYRIGHT ... we just
> used the one that came with Postgres95 originally and assumed that
> Berkeley never changed it ...
I totally agree with Marc on this. The GB-suggested change would:
1) Add confusion by making yet another license
2) Add protection we may not even need
3) Be very US-centric
4) Require obnoxious license approval
These are all major issues. I think getting the most recent BSD license
wording is the way to go.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
> still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
> developers ...
afaik we can't unilaterally alter the original license, either for dates
or for participants. However, we can send along a second license (or
first, primary, license) in the same file.
- Thomas
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote: > John Daniels wrote: > > > This is probably best done in stages, first notifying other BSD projects > > that PostgreSQL will update the BSD license (on July xx) by extending > > coverage to all developers and extending the term of coverage to 2000, and > > inviting them to do the same. (It only makes sense for them to do likewise) > > It doesn't make sense because it appears that they did this a long time > ago. It is us who needs to catch up and go to the freebsd licence. Correct about us catching up, incorrect about us 'going to the freebsd license' ... as Thomas has pointed out, just replacing our currently worded BSD license with the newer one may not be possible, but I am currently investigating this and will report back once I hear back :)
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > as mentioned by another person, it appears that the problem isn't with the > copyright, the problem is us :( BSD *has* already done all the revisons > to the copyright, we've just never upgraded ours to match theirs ... I > posted, in another thread, a proposed updated COPYRIGHT file based off of > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html ... Notice how the letter you cited was addressed to all users of 4.4BSD, and not to the users of all software products that every came out of Berkeley. Just because some of them got to change their license doesn't mean that all the other packages suddenly get to choose what wording they'd like. The particular change was the removal of the "advertisement clause". Postgres doesn't have an advertisement clause. If you want to get word from the UCB that we are allowed to insert "AND ALL OTHER CONTRIBUTORS" at strategic places in the current text then we'd probably be served best. But until then we have to leave the UCB license untouched. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
am investigating this right now ...
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
> > still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
> > developers ...
>
> afaik we can't unilaterally alter the original license, either for dates
> or for participants. However, we can send along a second license (or
> first, primary, license) in the same file.
>
> - Thomas
>
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Paperwork has already been sent off, gears are in motion :) On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 eisentrp@csis.gvsu.edu wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > as mentioned by another person, it appears that the problem isn't with the > > copyright, the problem is us :( BSD *has* already done all the revisons > > to the copyright, we've just never upgraded ours to match theirs ... I > > posted, in another thread, a proposed updated COPYRIGHT file based off of > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html ... > > Notice how the letter you cited was addressed to all users of 4.4BSD, and > not to the users of all software products that every came out of > Berkeley. Just because some of them got to change their license doesn't > mean that all the other packages suddenly get to choose what wording > they'd like. > > The particular change was the removal of the "advertisement clause". > Postgres doesn't have an advertisement clause. > > If you want to get word from the UCB that we are allowed to insert "AND > ALL OTHER CONTRIBUTORS" at strategic places in the current text then we'd > probably be served best. But until then we have to leave the UCB license > untouched. > > > -- > Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 > peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala > http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
At 09:34 7/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>am investigating this right now ...
>
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
>> > Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
>> > still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
>> > developers ...
>>
>> afaik we can't unilaterally alter the original license, either for dates
>> or for participants. However, we can send along a second license (or
>> first, primary, license) in the same file.
>>
>> - Thomas
FWIW, this is the information I got in answer to the question "given that
the source is
already under the BSD, is it even possible to change it, however slight
those changes might be?"
Answer: "Only in respect of those who agree to the change - that is why
unincorporated bodies have rules which allow for majority etc approval to
rules - which effectively constitute a contract between members - this has
implications for your community - you could perhaps agree to a mechanism for
defining the group and agreeing to changes with less than everyone approving
- this would make updating the licence possible - rather than virtually
impossible as it is now - but this introduces substantial complexity which
you are trying to avoid. However I suspect that these sorts of groups will
eventually have to do this to avoid becoming unwieldy unless the technology
becomes out of date first"
I guess the key bit is "rather than virtually impossible as it is now". So,
I am now asking him how he would define our 'community': my inclination is
that it has to include the WW Dev team, and almost certainly the users. Or
at least those users who have 'registered', but we'll see.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 |/
>FWIW, this is the information I got in answer to the question "given that >the source is >already under the BSD, is it even possible to change it, however slight >those changes might be?" > >Answer: "Only in respect of those who agree to the change - that is why Stupid question time: BSD allows forking of the code base, perhaps to proprietary. If going proprietary, I would imagine you could change the license. So why can't we have a "license fork"? Rob Nelson rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us
At 08:24 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
>
>Stupid question time: BSD allows forking of the code base, perhaps to
>proprietary. If going proprietary, I would imagine you could change the
>license. So why can't we have a "license fork"?
>
I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote: > At 08:24 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote: > > > >Stupid question time: BSD allows forking of the code base, perhaps to > >proprietary. If going proprietary, I would imagine you could change the > >license. So why can't we have a "license fork"? > > > > I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if > a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if > they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again. Actually, my understanding is that even if a commercial fork was made, the original license has to be visible *somewhere*, even if its just the COPYRIGHT file itself ...
>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if >a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if >they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again. What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right? So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only the license? Rob Nelson rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Robert D. Nelson wrote: > >I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if > >a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if > >they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again. > > What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed > to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish > themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right? no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't remove it ...
At 10:36 10/07/00 -0400, Robert D. Nelson wrote:
>>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
>>a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
>>they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
>
>What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed
>to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish
>themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right?
>
>So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only
>the license?
I think the answer is no, not without permission from all parties to the
current license agreement, which would, arguably, include UoC + anyone who
had ever used or worked on the code.
This is not as bad as it sounds; it merely ensures that a BSD license can
not be dumped. The BSD license itself does not require source to be
distributed, and it does not place any requirements on how the source is
used, except in so far is it requires the copyright and license terms to be
displayed etc.
I asked also if I could create a new license that includes the following
text at the start:
"The floowing paragraphs are only relevant in Botswana for the year 1967"
since that seems (naievely) to be legal. I am told that this would also,
probably, be in breach of the license terms...at least in Australia (which
is based on UK law).
Sadly I am still waiting for complete answers to most of my questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 |/
>no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't >remove it ... Okay, well that is what's wanted, correct? Or am I reading the mail wrong? Rob Nelson rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Robert D. Nelson wrote: > >no they can't ... they can add to the current license, but they can't > >remove it ... > > Okay, well that is what's wanted, correct? Or am I reading the mail wrong? I've contacted the University of California "licensing director" about upgrading our current BSD COPYRIGHT (which is ~4years old) to the more recent version ... baring that, adding an amendment will have to be the next option ...
"Robert D. Nelson" wrote: > > >I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if > >a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if > >they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again. > > What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed > to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish > themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right? > > So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only > the license? As soon as you have a licence fork, you automatically get a code fork. Because all patches are going to be submitted under one licence or the other, then the other fork loses out.