Thread: Re: Postgresql Docs....
> > > I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain > > > program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright. You might want to > > > correct this for the next release. > > > http://www.bbin.com/pd/ > > Ooh. I guess I'm not familiar with the fine points here. Our > > Berkeley-style license allows use, modification, sale, gift, theft, > > etc. of the software with only one provision: that the copyright > > notice remain intact. Clearly, this copyright notice is designed to > > protect UCB from rabid lawyers once the software is no longer under > > UCB's control, and this copyright allows any and all of the above > > uses, and any other use also. > > So what about this would not be considered public domain software? > Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain. Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment. But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that we are getting gypped by the legaleze. Thanks for the heads-up... - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
On 16-Nov-99 Thomas Lockhart wrote: >> > > I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain >> > > program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright. You might want to >> > > correct this for the next release. >> > > http://www.bbin.com/pd/ >> > Ooh. I guess I'm not familiar with the fine points here. Our >> > Berkeley-style license allows use, modification, sale, gift, theft, >> > etc. of the software with only one provision: that the copyright >> > notice remain intact. Clearly, this copyright notice is designed to >> > protect UCB from rabid lawyers once the software is no longer under >> > UCB's control, and this copyright allows any and all of the above >> > uses, and any other use also. >> > So what about this would not be considered public domain software? >> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain. > > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment. > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that > we are getting gypped by the legaleze. IIRC, All copyright notices must be kept intact. Software in the public domain carries no protection whatsoever. PD software can be taken and renamed to whatever by the person that renamed it and claimed to be their own property. This happened to the WinVN project at least once (it's a PD Windows newsreader). At least one commercial project came directly from the WinVN sources - which are in the public domain. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null # include <std/disclaimers.h> Have you seenhttp://www.pop4.net? Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>>>> I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain
>>>>>> program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright. You might want to
>>>>>> correct this for the next release.
>>>> So what about this would not be considered public domain software?
>> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.
> Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> we are getting gypped by the legaleze.
IANAL, but I've paid considerable attention to these issues over the
past ten years. My understanding is that "public domain" means
specifically that there is *no* copyright or any other intellectual-
property restriction on the software. In particular, anything that
has either a BSD- or GPL-style license is most certainly not public
domain.
I'd suggest replacing all uses of the phrase "public domain" with
"open source" or "freely available" or some other term that hasn't
got such a clearly-inapplicable legal meaning.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > So what about this would not be considered public domain software? > > Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain. > > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment. > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that > we are getting gypped by the legaleze. How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to buzzword-compliant these days. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > > > So what about this would not be considered public domain software? > > > Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain. > > > > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment. > > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we > > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that > > we are getting gypped by the legaleze. > > How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do > whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to > buzzword-compliant these days. How about simply "BSD licensed?" -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio
hi... > > > Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment. > > > But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we > > > are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that > > > we are getting gypped by the legaleze. > > > > How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do > > whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to > > buzzword-compliant these days. > > How about simply "BSD licensed?" traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its TRULY free", there are string attatched... anyways... as long as a lisence protects what needs to be protected, all is good. instead of arguing silly semantics (BSD/XFree/Public Domain/GPL/blahblahblah) we should be looking more importantly at which rights we want to secure and which we don't really care about. BSD/XFree style liscences are good when a permisiveness is desired (like apache and how it help keep HTTP on track) and bad when you aren't trying to enforce certain standards but endevouring to keep a software available to others... fortunately, postgres isn't a trivial piece of software, which serves as a protection. but it isn't so complex that it couldn't be taken on by another entity. in fact, a compay could easily come along and swoop up the core 4 programmers with terrific job offers and that would pretty much be that =) lets hope people's scruples and dedications are in the place We would like them to be... public domain would be horrid. BSD/XFree style is fine, though probably more permissive than needed (and perhaps even desired). the GPL is probably a little too demanding for this type of software though... it would be interesting to see it settle somewhere in between. e.g. if you want to extend it, GREAT! if you distribute it gratis, you have to make it available to everyone... perhaps require source code be available for the current release (not distributed, but available)... and if someone wants to _sell_ it as a closed package, fine! but require they give something back to the postgres development team. -- Aaron J. Seigo Sys Admin
One half-decent newspeak alternative I've seen to "free software" and "open source" is "Wide-Open Source" (WOS). It seems designed to imply that your licence is "open source, and then some", such as BSD-style without the advertising clause and meaningless reference to Berkeley. "Aaron J. Seigo" wrote: > > > How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do > > > whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to > > > buzzword-compliant these days. > > > > How about simply "BSD licensed?" > > traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising > clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find > that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing > anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its > TRULY free", there are string attatched... Cheers, Evan @ 4-am
"Aaron J. Seigo" wrote: > > How about simply "BSD licensed?" > > traditional "BSD Liscences" have that silly advertising > clause.. which postgres does as well, unfortunately... quite honestly, i find > that irritating and antiquated. *shrug* not like the regents are exactly doing > anything important w/postgres now, right? and for all the shouting of "its > TRULY free", there are string attatched... There are always strings attached. The BSD license has the fewest strings short of fully public domain. > Domain/GPL/blahblahblah) we should be looking more importantly at which rights > we want to secure and which we don't really care about. That has already been done -- PostgreSQL still has Berkeley code in it, and therefore HAS TO BE BSD licensed -- if the license terms are to be changed (which is not likely to happen), Berkeley code will have to be eradicated -- which is also not likely to happen. [snip] The point is this: the license is not changing (unless ALL contributors past and present agree to it). I just stated the fact of what license it is. There is really no use in discussing what license to put PostgreSQL under, as it is already under one. That means that there is absolutely no obligation on anyone who uses the software to give back to the community -- in fact, if they want to take PostgreSQL, rename it, and sell it, they are free to do so -- and they don't have to give anything back. In fact, the original Postgres had this very thing happen -- the commercial database Illustra was the result, and that got swallowed by Informix. PostgreSQL lives -- Illustra is dead. Long live PostgreSQL! -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio
At 12:22 PM -0800 11/17/99, Lamar Owen wrote: >There is really no use in discussing what license to put PostgreSQL >under, as it is already under one. That means that there is absolutely >no obligation on anyone who uses the software to give back to the >community -- in fact, if they want to take PostgreSQL, rename it, and >sell it, they are free to do so -- and they don't have to give anything >back. In fact, the original Postgres had this very thing happen -- the Well there is *one* thing they have to give back: credit. They have to reproduce the copyright notice. Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu