Thread: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ... > > > > The whole thing is too wordy. > > > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with > > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has > > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone. > > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no? It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people vote. -- 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
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
> > >
> > > The whole thing is too wordy.
> > >
> > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
> > > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has
> > > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.
> >
> > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no?
>
> It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people
> vote.
As one of those who contributed my $.02 to PostgreSQL, I think short is
sweet.
'tis got my vote.
--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no license changes are desired. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its existing license. -- 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
I appreciate everyone chiming on on this discussion. I know it isn't fun, but once we get agreeable wording, it is something we can point to that will give clarity to others asking similar questions. -- 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
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
> > >
> > > The whole thing is too wordy.
> > >
> > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable
> > > with restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project
> > > always has and will continue to remain under the BSD license
> > > alone.
> >
> > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no?
>
> It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people
> vote.
While it is certainly true that PostgreSQL developers are
"uncomfortable" with the GPL this version doesn't say *why* you are
uncomfortable. People that follow the BSD-GPL flamewars know what
your problems with the GPL are, but other folks that are just
peripherally aware of the debate (like those who are asking about
GPLing PostgreSQL) could very well misinterpret this. After all, if
they want you to GPL PostgreSQL then clearly they think the
"restrictions" placed by the GPL are not a big deal. To them this
statement will probably read like:
We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for
hippies and communists :).
I like the other version:
We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license
and see no need to change it.
Instead of emphasizing the problems with the GPL this version
emphasizes the benefits of the BSD license (it's the archetypal
open-source license, and it has no anti-proprietary restrictions).
This statement also specifically points out which "restrictions" to
the GPL make you uncomfortable.
I would go on to say that it "extends the hand of fellowship" by
pointing out that the GPL has similar goals, but I think that would be
a little over the top. No need to wax poetic.
My 2 cents,
Jason Earl
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
> > >
> > > The whole thing is too wordy.
> > >
> > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
> > > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has
> > > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.
> >
> > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no?
>
> It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people
> vote.
I like it. It reduces it to the bottom line "we've been
there, discussed that, forget it".
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
I've like the variations of the theme for this, especially the simplisty of the one below. The only thing that may be adventagous to change is to say: "PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions" rather than using the word "Many". However, as listed sounds fine to me. Maybe this is confrontational, but does it make sense to give a list of a few things wrong with the GPL? I'm unsure if that would be benfitial or just confrontational, since it would sound like an attack against the GPL license directly. On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 10:13, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the > "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no > license changes are desired. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) > restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such > restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its > existing license. > > -- > 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:12, Jason Earl wrote: > We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for > hippies and communists :). OT: I thought GPL was for communists and BSD was for hippies? ;-) -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
Ned Wolpert wrote: Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:12, Jason Earl wrote: > > We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for > > hippies and communists :). > > OT: I thought GPL was for communists and BSD was for hippies? ;-) Way off topic: I think it is GPL/communism vs. BSD/socialism. -- 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
On 21 Jan 2002, Ned Wolpert wrote: > I've like the variations of the theme for this, especially the simplisty > of the one below. The only thing that may be adventagous to change is > to say: > "PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions" > rather than using the word "Many". However, as listed sounds fine to me. Because lacking the word "Many" implies that ALL of the developers are uncomfortable with the restriction which is incorrect. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with > > > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has > > > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone. > > > > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no? > > It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people > vote. Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect, because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways. I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify it as "FAQ" anyway. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the > "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no > license changes are desired. Confrontational. Too wordy. Invites debate. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) > restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such > restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its > existing license. > > Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
OK, I have worked with Vince, our webmaster, to merge our two versions into one paragraph that everyone, hopefully, will like. It is below. It would be added to the bottom of FAQ item 1.2: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. -- 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, BSD and GPL licences don't have similar goals. You'll get a lot of mail saying this, if you publish such a phrase. Just say BSD is the licence used by PostgreSQL. Let people make their own idea of why and for what things are the way they are. This way, it'll be *way* much ecological. I, for instance, learned to accept the fact that PG is BSD-licensed, which also helped me understand the nature of BSD. But it took time. It is not suitable for a FAQ. I remember a very enlightening sentence months ago in this list, which said the intention behind the licencing scheme was "do whatever you want with this software, but do it under your own responsibility, don't blame the authors" Regards, Haroldo.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:12:58PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with > > > > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has > > > > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone. > > > > > > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no? > > > > It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people > > vote. > > Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect, > because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is > not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways. > > I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are > about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify > it as "FAQ" anyway. > The one thing that _does_ come up is not 'change your license to GPL' but "here's my GPLed code: can it get into the main tree?" I liked the version that mentioned 'contributors must BSD license to get it into the main tree' since that's the principle Q for people we care about: potential coders. Anyone else who wants to argue licenses can be safely ignored. Ross
> The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
> imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
> such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.
If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere
in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested,
non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like:
Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license
from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution
is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license.
Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm
not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I
am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which
have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen
tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough
for me ;)
- Thomas
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > > GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions > > imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no > > such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > > If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere > in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested, > non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like: > > Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license > from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution > is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license. > > Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm > not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I > am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which > have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen > tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough > for me ;) Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
...
> Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.
Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at
least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current
arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum?
I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on
-hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently...
- Thomas
Hi all, It may be useful to include a link below the final statement to this (and/or other) threads on BSD/GPL license discussion. As much as a license FAQ item is about informing users about the license and why it specifically is used, it needs also to deter people from the 'WHY ISN'T POSTGRES xyz LICENSE?' mailing list post. Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?' Thanks, Gavin
Gavin Sherry wrote: > Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already > been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would > help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't > Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?' Simple answer: "because Postgres and the BSD license predates the GPL." I think that's correct and it's even relevant, no? -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. > > Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at > least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current > arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum? Current wording proposal which is a mix from several people: The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on > -hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently... Not sure who added general but I did not remove it. -- 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
> The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
> imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
> such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.
*I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present
company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been
satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves
Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine.
I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
great licenses in the history of open software. So why are we having to
justify it?
- Thomas
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Don Baccus wrote: > Gavin Sherry wrote: > > > > Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already > > been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would > > help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't > > Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?' > > Simple answer: "because Postgres and the BSD license predates the GPL." > > > I think that's correct and it's even relevant, no? I wasn't asking the question personally =) but rather discussing the kind of being being asked by people interested in Postgres's licensing and the way it would be most adequately answered. Gavin
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
> great licenses in the history of open software.
Agreed entirely.
> So why are we having to justify it?
We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that
might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question.
FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this
issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry.
Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been
discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion;
now go away" ...
regards, tom lane
I think it's necessary, just looking at my mailbox :). Anyone who wants a GPL version of Postgresql can fork off. Cheerio, Link. At 03:24 AM 22-01-2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes: >> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the >> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the >> great licenses in the history of open software. > >Agreed entirely. > >> So why are we having to justify it? > >We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that >might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question. >FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this >issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry. > >Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been >discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion; >now go away" ... > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. > > Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at > least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current > arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum? Reread what?! The same message you quoted and I responded to! > I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on > -hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently... 'cuze that's how it started and noone changed it. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > > GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions > > imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no > > such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > > *I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present > company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been > satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves > Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine. And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Hey guys, I think we have three camps here. (1) BSD camp. (2) GPL Camp. (3) Moderates. The BSD camp wants to promote the BSD license and the philosophy. There is nothing wrong with this, but I think it has to be acknowledged. The GPL camp can't understand how anyone would not use GPL for an open source project. So many evil companies from whom to protect one's self. The Moderates are in between. I am personally uncomfortable with promoting the BSD license. It is a good license, yes, but I think it is too open, and does lend itself to corporate abuse. I am equally uncomfortable in promoting the GPL. I think it is way too radical and attempts to be too viral. Can't we just say that PostgreSQL uses the BSD license for historical reasons, and without any absolute consensus amongst the developers, there is no reason to change? I think that is a very reasonable middle of the road approach, without getting into the GPL/BSD bashing. I think it is abundantly clear that PostgreSQL is bigger than the license debate, and that many people with different views on it, are willing to accept the status quo to develop for it. Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL. I
...
> And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there.
I understand that. My point is that we are dancing around trying to find
acceptable wording for a line of explanation that simply should not be
there in the first place. Why bother mentioning "many find GPL
unacceptable", no matter what alternate phrasing is found, when the
issue for everyone with the project can boil down to much simpler, more
fundamental reasons peculiar to PostgreSQL itself:
PostgreSQL was given to us by Berkeley with the BSD license,
and that license has served us well.
No need to explain acceptable vs unacceptable, no need to decide whether
there are a few, some, many, or all developers feeling GPL is
unacceptable, no need for any of that.
I don't mean to be argumentative here (and hope I'm not) but it seems we
are stretching to find wording for a possibly controversial area which
is moot since there are other fundamental reasons for enjoying the
license we have.
- Thomas
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change
> their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL.
Huh? We're not debating it --- no one in this thread is suggesting that
the license be changed. We're trying to formulate a FAQ entry that
will prevent people from bringing the subject up again in the future.
I think the hard part here is to word the entry to make it clear that
the decision is final, without annoying anyone so much that we end up
creating flamewars instead of preventing 'em.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > > mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes: > > Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change > > their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL. > > Huh? We're not debating it --- no one in this thread is suggesting that > the license be changed. We're trying to formulate a FAQ entry that > will prevent people from bringing the subject up again in the future. > > I think the hard part here is to word the entry to make it clear that > the decision is final, without annoying anyone so much that we end up > creating flamewars instead of preventing 'em. Could something like "The core team has participated in several discussions about changing the license and has found no good reasons to do so". If anyone else wants to relese it under any other license (GPL, MPL, AOL, MSFT ;) then they are free to do so as long as they comply with the original license. That could produce 1 or 2 dead PostgreGPL.sf.net projects each year but should otherways be harmless :) ---------------- Hannu