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 <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.

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

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:
> 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 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 <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

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

> 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

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

-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

> 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