Thread: PHP stuff
I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension. I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentationwholesale from the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on PQtransactionStatus, etc. I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :) Cheers, Chris
> I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension. > I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from > the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, > the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on > PQtransactionStatus, etc. > > I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :) This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension. > I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from the > PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, the > fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on PQtransactionStatus, > etc. There shouldn' tbe any issues ... if I recall correctly, someone took the docs wholesale and bound/sold them as documentation at one point ... maybe an attribution as to where you got it from? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:08:48 -0500, Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> wrote: > > I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension. > > I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from > > the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, > > the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on > > PQtransactionStatus, etc. > > > > I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :) > > This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights > assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any > incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license? Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold. If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under a license that may not be compatible with BSD.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:08:48 -0500, > Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> wrote: > > > I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension. > > > I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from > > > the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, > > > the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on > > > PQtransactionStatus, etc. > > > > > > I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :) > > > > This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights > > assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any > > incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license? > > Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you > can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold. > If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under > a license that may not be compatible with BSD. Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other license, including commercial. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:34:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other > license, including commercial. If that were true, than why not have the code public domain? Ismn't there credit information that is supposed to be kept?
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:34:14 -0500, > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other > > license, including commercial. > > If that were true, than why not have the code public domain? Ismn't there > credit information that is supposed to be kept? I am not sure we require any _credit_ given to use for use of our code. As I see it, our only limitation is don't sue us. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you
>> can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold.
>> If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under
>> a license that may not be compatible with BSD.
> Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
> license, including commercial.
The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on
the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone.
ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff
that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good
safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray
areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just
cut-and-pasted from community property.
regards, tom lane
>>Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other >>license, including commercial. > > The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on > the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone. > > ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff > that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good > safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray > areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just > cut-and-pasted from community property. Argh. Well here comes a copy and paste PHP docs patch with a some 'rephrasings'... Since the PHP API to pgsql is identical to libpq's... Chris
>>>Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other >>>license, including commercial. >> >> The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on >> the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone. >> >> ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff >> that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good >> safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray >> areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just >> cut-and-pasted from community property. > > Argh. Well here comes a copy and paste PHP docs patch with a some > 'rephrasings'... Since the PHP API to pgsql is identical to libpq's... > Technically, that is still a derived work. I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object relational system, etc. etc. Once that is done, and the Representatives of "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" have signed off, you should just be allowed to copy. In fact, I would say that is the best way to do it. Even copying and rephrasing is copyright infringement. The only way around it is the Phoenix technology method, where an unspoiled writer would take instructions from you and your read of the original documentation. Seriously, this should happen anyway. The PHP guys are not doing due diligence on what they accept.
Mark Woodward wrote: > I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its > representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just > has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of > "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or > distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the > PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object > relational system, etc. etc. The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use it under the terms spelled out in the license. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Mark Woodward wrote: > > I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its > > representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just > > has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of > > "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or > > distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the > > PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object > > relational system, etc. etc. > > The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to > relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give > someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use > it under the terms spelled out in the license. Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the existing BSD license? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
> Mark Woodward wrote: >> I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its >> representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just >> has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of >> "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or >> distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the >> PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object >> relational system, etc. etc. > > The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to > relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give > someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use > it under the terms spelled out in the license. This not about the "license" per se'. This is about the legal rights of the copyright holder. The documentation claims: PostgreSQL 8.0.1 Documentation The PostgreSQL Global Development Group Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid.
> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Mark Woodward wrote: >> > I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its >> > representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just >> > has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of >> > "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or >> > distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the >> > PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object >> > relational system, etc. etc. >> >> The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to >> relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give >> someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use >> it under the terms spelled out in the license. > > Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a > closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the > existing BSD license? The BSD license requires that original copyright owner maintain ownership of copyright. The PHP guys want the works to be under PHP ownership. Specifically: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PostgreSQL Database Management System (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95) Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2005, The PostgreSQL Global Development Group Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The 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. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mark Woodward wrote: > As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," > has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For > PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered > in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid. The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright holders can do that. What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are derived from PostgreSQL software. (Note that I am not opposed to someone else copying PostgreSQL software; I wouldn't be in this project otherwise. I'm just explaining the situation.) -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> Mark Woodward wrote: >> As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," >> has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For >> PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered >> in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid. > > The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so > it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright > holders can do that. Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger government," without charter or incorporation can own and control copyright. IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me. > > What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept > contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will > not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are > derived from PostgreSQL software. Since the document is "Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
"Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
> copyright.
> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.
In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.
regards, tom lane
> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes: >> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be >> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, >> that >> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger >> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control >> copyright. > >> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me. > > Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list. > It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no > clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going > to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to > go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core > committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue. > > In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is > just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on > the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code. > Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-) What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly put it in the public domain like SQLite? > >> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, >> whatever >> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright. > > No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on > behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen. Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group," and claim ownership.
"Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
>> just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
>> the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
>> Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
> What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
> put it in the public domain like SQLite?
We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in practice
there's hardly any difference anyway.
regards, tom lane
Mark Woodward wrote: > Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create > a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment > Group," and claim ownership. No, the point is that we want to stick at least *some* copyright notice in the code, so people are advised that the code is copyrighted and they are given an indication about whom they might contact about it. According to international treaties, copyright to anything is in fact owned by whoever created it (or their employer), no matter what the copyright notice, if any, says. The copyright notice is only a service to, let's call them honest people, who might want to contact the author before using code they found. "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group" serves just fine as a point of contact. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: > > As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," has > the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. The PGDG has never asked for copyright assignments from contributors (as I gather the PHP folks do), so the copyright to Postgres is collectively owned by everyone who has contributed to it, and not by the PGDG itself (as Peter said). Relicensing would require the consent of all copyright holders. > At least in the USA, any entity that can be identified can own and > control copyright. So this is a moot point. > Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create > a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment > Group," and claim ownership. And that simply isn't possible. -- ams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in > practice there's hardly any difference anyway. Just out of curiosity, are the docs covered by the Berkeley copyright? I know the code originally came from there, but did our current docs evolve from them, or were they created later on? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200503171713 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCOgExvJuQZxSWSsgRAgi0AKD5UUl3frO6uv4UBTGed/1OaZppqwCgiw12 pjxiwpS/2TNGBDRp3syigGQ= =cHI1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: [ There is text before PGP section. ] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in > > practice there's hardly any difference anyway. > > Just out of curiosity, are the docs covered by the Berkeley copyright? > I know the code originally came from there, but did our current docs > evolve from them, or were they created later on? They evolved, so they are BSD copyrighted. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073