Thread: License on PostgreSQL

There is no license fee either for commercial or non commercial usage as
state: " 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.

HOWEVER, I AM NOT A LAWER, THEREFORE I COULD BE WRONG.

Regards,

Bernard

On Thursday 25 March 2004 01:19, Eric Yum wrote:
> Dear Sir
>
> I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to develop
> some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I would like to know that is it
> necessary to pay any license charge on the usage of PostgreSQL as
> database server for commercial purpose. If so, how much of it?? Does it
> charge on server basis or client basis??
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Eric Yum
> CK Life Sciences Ltd.
> Finance & Administration - IT Team
> Tel: 21261351

Eric Yum wrote:
> I am a developer of one commercial organization. We are going to develop
> some applications with PostgreSQL 7.3.3. I would like to know that is it
> necessary to pay any license charge on the usage of PostgreSQL as
> database server for commercial purpose. If so, how much of it?? Does it
> charge on server basis or client basis??

Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
applies. Perhaps we need to add it.

--
dave

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
> Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
> page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
> applies. Perhaps we need to add it.

It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.

See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details.  AFAIR
we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
of 2000, and I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
>>Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
>>page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
>>applies. Perhaps we need to add it.
>
> It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
> requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.
>
> See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details.  AFAIR
> we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
> of 2000, and I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.

Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or
license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page,
"original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and
which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think
it's the original BSD.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

--
dave

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
>> ... I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.

> Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or
> license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page,
> "original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and
> which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think
> it's the original BSD.

This is FSF's fault then.  I will write to RMS and ask him to fix the
ambiguity.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
>>Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or
>>license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page,
>>"original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and
>>which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think
>>it's the original BSD.
>
> This is FSF's fault then.  I will write to RMS and ask him to fix the
> ambiguity.

Before you do (and I think we don't need to because my wording above is
not very good)...

I was not saying that _FSF_ lists PG on that page. I was saying that
_the PG website_ states PG license as "BSD", without using the
additional attribute "modern" or "modified". People who read the FSF
license page might think PG BSD license is not the modern/modified one.

--
dave

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
> I was not saying that _FSF_ lists PG on that page. I was saying that
> _the PG website_ states PG license as "BSD", without using the
> additional attribute "modern" or "modified". People who read the FSF
> license page might think PG BSD license is not the modern/modified one.

Actually, the FSF page doesn't seem to refer to the BSD license per se;
they always talk about either "original BSD" or "modified BSD", and they
are perfectly clear that the advertising clause is the difference.
I don't think anyone would be likely to get confused, or to be unable to
figure out that PG's license doesn't have the advertising clause.

            regards, tom lane