Thread: Licence

Hi Everyone,

Can someone please confirm that the PostgreSQL licence allow commercial distribution (with a fee charged)?

I am developing a proprietary (i.e. non-free) solution in Java, and wish to use PostgreSQL as the backend database. We wish to ship the server with our software, as well as use the JDBC driver included in our java solution.

I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"

Is it just a matter of placing the PostgreSQL licence text in the "About" box of the solution, as well as in the paper/PDF manual?

Thanks

Jonny

In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
>
> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm
bells,even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if
youdistribute, you must not charge a fee" 

The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing so.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
>
>> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm
bells,even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if
youdistribute, you must not charge a fee" 
>>
>
> The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing so.
>
>
We all know that, but the wording certainly is ambiguous and could be
interpreted either way. Reminds me of Ed Asner in the old "Remenber, you
can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor." nuke-plant retiree
sketch on "Saturday Night Live." (When he left, they argued about the
interpretation and eventually decided to drain the reactor. Final line
to waitress on the beach: "Remember, you can't stare too long at a
radiation cloud...")

It seems to me that ", without fee, and without a written agreement"
could be stripped out entirely.

But I am not a lawyer. And while there is no problem asking the question
here, if there is any actual money/liability on the line then relying on
legal advice from geeks is about as sensible as asking your attorney for
a custom kernel module. That goes for the whole stack of components in
your system, not just PostgreSQL which is about the least likely to
cause licensing problems.

Cheers,
Steve

Steve Crawford wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
>>
>>> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however
>>> the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I
>>> think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL
>>> developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
>>>
>>
>> The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing
>> so.
>>
>>
> We all know that, but the wording certainly is ambiguous and could be
> interpreted either way. Reminds me of Ed Asner in the old "Remenber, you
> can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor." nuke-plant retiree
> sketch on "Saturday Night Live." (When he left, they argued about the
> interpretation and eventually decided to drain the reactor. Final line
> to waitress on the beach: "Remember, you can't stare too long at a
> radiation cloud...")
>
> It seems to me that ", without fee, and without a written agreement"
> could be stripped out entirely.
>
> But I am not a lawyer. And while there is no problem asking the question
> here, if there is any actual money/liability on the line then relying on
> legal advice from geeks is about as sensible as asking your attorney for
> a custom kernel module. That goes for the whole stack of components in
> your system, not just PostgreSQL which is about the least likely to
> cause licensing problems.

In at least some jurisdictions, if one party to a contract writes the language
without input or emendation from the other party, that allows the other party
to impose any reasonable interpretation on the wording.  IOW, ambiguity is
resolved in favor of the party who had no choice in the wording.

That would mean the licensee gets to determine what "without fee" means, not
the licensor.

--
Lew

On Sunday 21 March 2010 21.11:56 Lew wrote:

> In at least some jurisdictions, if one party to a contract writes the
> language without input or emendation from the other party, that allows
> the other party to impose any reasonable interpretation on the wording.
> IOW, ambiguity is resolved in favor of the party who had no choice in
> the wording.
>
> That would mean the licensee gets to determine what "without fee" means,
> not the licensor.

A (copyright) license and a contract are two entirely different things.

By using PostgreSQL you do not enter a contract with the authors (or any
other copyright holder) but you make use of a license that grants you
certain permissions.  The essential difference to a contract is that if the
license terms are not to your liking, you can always quit using it.  With a
contract (especially those where one party alone wrote it - basically most
contracts a private person will ever have with a company such as a bank,
telco, insurance company, ....) you are usually bound and can't quit without
compensation, which is why the law protects the "weaker" party that much.

cheers
-- vbi


--
  Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero