Thread: Re: new food for the contrib/ directory
first comment :
* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?
second comment :
* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public License. The GPL is offering multiple
advantagesfor a big project and software like PostgreSQL. For example :
* Contribution back to the main tree more easy if redistribution. (like HP and Samba team are doing,
copyrightholder remains samba team)
* More easy to get a RF (Royalty Free) license from a patent owner. (this is guarantee for him that it
willnot go back to proprietary software where it's not a RF license) (like the UB-Trees)
* A possible bigger audience.
Dual licensing is also an alternative but could be a real mess.
It's just idea.
alx
--
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com http://www.conostix.com/
Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes: > first comment : > > * a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ? Doesn't really change anything. > second comment : > > * I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public > License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and > software like PostgreSQL. For example : Not open for discussion. See the FAQ. -Doug -- Doug McNaught Wireboard Industries http://www.wireboard.com/ Custom software development, systems and network consulting. Java PostgreSQL Enhydra Python Zope Perl Apache LinuxBSD...
On 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote: > Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes: > > > first comment : > > > > * a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ? > > Doesn't really change anything. > > > second comment : > > > > * I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public > > License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and > > software like PostgreSQL. For example : > > Not open for discussion. See the FAQ. I love that type of respond ;-) Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because is like that..." I have also read that : http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue. Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ? Thanks a lot for the excellent software. alx > > -Doug > -- Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com http://www.conostix.com/
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > > Not open for discussion. See the FAQ. > > I love that type of respond ;-) > > Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified > Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because > is like that..." > > I have also read that : > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php > > My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some > specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type > license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue. Yes, GPL has advantages, but it does prevent non-source distributions. You can say that is not a problem, but not everyone agrees. > Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ? No. The discussion thread was painful enough. :-) -- 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, Pennsylvania19026
Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:
> * I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
> License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
> software like PostgreSQL.
Every month or two a newbie pops up and asks us why Postgres isn't GPL.
The short answer is that we like the BSD license and that's how Berkeley
released it originally. We have no interest in changing it even if we
could (which we can't).
If you want a longer answer, consult the mailing list archives; there
have been numerous extended threads on this topic. Most of us are
pretty tired of it by now :-(
The question of whether to accept GPL'd contrib modules is less
clear-cut (obviously, since it's been done in the past). But we've
concluded that it just muddies the water to have GPL'd code in the
distribution. Contrib authors who really prefer GPL have other avenues
to distribute their code.
regards, tom lane
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when adulau@conostix.com (Alexandre Dulaunoy) would write: > On 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote: > >> Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes: >> >> > first comment : >> > >> > * a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ? >> >> Doesn't really change anything. >> >> > second comment : >> > >> > I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General >> > Public License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big >> > project and software like PostgreSQL. For example : >> >> Not open for discussion. See the FAQ. > > I love that type of respond ;-) > > Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified > Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because > is like that..." X-Mailer: mh-e 6.1; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.4 Different people consider there to be different reasons for the BSD-style license to be preferable. Discussion of the matter tends to start up flame wars, and basically wastes peoples' time. Those two factors are actually sufficient all by themselves to suggest that "Because the developers prefer it" is a quite sufficient response. - There are likely some people that dislike the GPL because RMS wrote it; having a discussion about that guarantees a flamewar. - There are likely some people who consider the somewhat "viral" provisions of the GPL to be a Bad Thing; having a discussionabout that guarantees a flame war. - There are likely people who prefer the notion that they can, if they need to, integrate PostgreSQL with their own othercode, and not have any need to conform to the requirements of the GPL. - There are likely people who prefer not to need to conform to the requirements of the GPL. All of these are eminently "flameworthy" topics where different people legitimately have different positions on their merits. Holding a discussion guarantees leaping into one or another of the "flames," or perhaps others I've not thought to mention. The simplest answer _definitely_ is to say "See the FAQ; it says as much as needs to be said." If you want to contribute code to a GPLed database system, you are entirely free to do so; options include:- MySQL (maybe, sorta)- SAP-DB- GNU SQL- Aubit 4GL- McKoi SQL -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc")) http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #209. "I will not, under any circumstances, marry a woman I know to be a faithless, conniving, back-stabbing witch simply because I am absolutely desperate to perpetuate my family line. Of course, we can still date." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
...
> Thanks a lot for the excellent software.
My personal view is that one might consider using the same BSD license
as PostgreSQL itself as a gesture of appreciation for the software you
are using. Contribute or not, it is your choice. But if you are
benefiting from the software (and lots of folks are) then why not take
the "big risk" of contributing back with a similar license?
Regards.
- Thomas
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote: > Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified > Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because > is like that..." You would have to ask the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley, not us. You would also have to ask them for permission to change the licensing for the parts of Posgres that they contributed; since they own the copyright, nobody else, not even the Postgresql project, can change the licensing. It might be good to make this a bit more clear in the FAQ. As well, you might wish to add some information in light of the following: As a NetBSD developer, I'd like to point out that the experience of the NetBSD project has been that having multiple licenses in a system is very expensive and makes releases a nightmare, if you're really going to do it "right." Just finding all of the licenses in the system is an arduous and time-consuming job. People using Posgres in many commerical situations will save real dollars if everything is under one license. Note also that one of the big problems we experienced was with clause three of BSD-style licenses (the attribution clause). If you change the name in clause three, you have a different license, and you may have problems. That was the biggest factor contributing to massive license proliferation in the NetBSD tree. Personally, I think clause three is best left out alltogether, though I doubt it's changable for files still including Berkeley source. cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're alllight. --XTC
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> Note also that one of the big problems we experienced was with clause
> three of BSD-style licenses (the attribution clause).
Fortunately, Berkeley had already stopped using the advertising clause
when they tossed Postgres over the fence. Our version does not have
it (see ~/COPYRIGHT).
regards, tom lane