Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard > boilerplate, with approval of author. I really don't see why or how this is an improvement. But if no one else cares about it, so be it ... I wonder what would have happened if I had stuck my name in the autovacuum.c, pg_shdepend.c or multixact.c files (wow, I did really come up with all that stuff!) I know Tom hacked extensively on all of them, so his name would also be there :-) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I wonder what would have happened if I had stuck my name in the
> autovacuum.c, pg_shdepend.c or multixact.c files
We would have asked you for permission to change it to the standard
project copyright.
The plpgsql and pltcl files date from a time when we weren't paying
much attention to having a consistent copyright notice on all parts
of the source distribution, but now we are.
Seeing that now you're working for a company that depends on the ability
to redistribute the PG code commercially, I would think you'd be all for
making sure that the legalities are nicely lined up. Do you really want
to dig through the source tree at every release to see whether you can
redistribute all of it?
regards, tom lane
> Seeing that now you're working for a company that depends on the ability > to redistribute the PG code commercially, I would think you'd be all for > making sure that the legalities are nicely lined up. Do you really want > to dig through the source tree at every release to see whether you can > redistribute all of it? > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does. I can't read Alvaro's mind though :). It is very good to keep everything consistent. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
Tom Lane
Date:
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
> doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
attention to if you're redistributing.
> It is very good to keep everything consistent.
Yup, that's all we're after.
regards, tom lane
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
Robert Treat
Date:
On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
> > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
>
> Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
> one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
> then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
> contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
> then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
> attention to if you're redistributing.
>
> > It is very good to keep everything consistent.
>
> Yup, that's all we're after.
>
It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it
will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a
non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright
claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized
legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone
to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > > > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright > > > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does. > > > > Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development > > Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the > > one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else > > then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually > > contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now) > > then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay > > attention to if you're redistributing. > > > > > It is very good to keep everything consistent. > > > > Yup, that's all we're after. > > > > It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it > will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a > non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright > claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized > legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone > to attempt to gain ownership of the code. With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
He does make a point ... if there is only one copyright holder, even if
right now its a non-entity, if someone like Oracle came along, *created* a
legal entity called 'The PostgreSQL Global Development Group', they could,
in theory, change the License wihtout needing to get approval from
current/past contributors ...
by retaining accreditation/copyright for those contributing the code, like
other projects do do, then changing the license becomes that much more
difficult ... no?
Example, wu-ftpd:
/****************************************************************************
Copyright (c) 1999,2000 WU-FTPD Development Group. All rights reserved.
Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California.
Portions Copyright (c) 1993, 1994 Washington University in Saint Louis. Portions Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Berkeley
SoftwareDesign, Inc. Portions Copyright (c) 1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Portions Copyright (c) 1998
Sendmail,Inc. Portions Copyright (c) 1983, 1995, 1996, 1997 Eric P. Allman. Portions Copyright (c) 1997 by Stan
Barber. Portions Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Landfield. Portions Copyright (c) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Use and distribution of this software and its source code are governed by the terms and conditions of the WU-FTPD
SoftwareLicense ("LICENSE").
If you did not receive a copy of the license, it may be obtained online at http://www.wu-ftpd.org/license.html.
$Id: extensions.c,v 1.48 2000/07/01 18:17:38 wuftpd Exp $
****************************************************************************/
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
>>> doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
>>
>> Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
>> Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
>> one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
>> then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
>> contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
>> then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
>> attention to if you're redistributing.
>>
>>> It is very good to keep everything consistent.
>>
>> Yup, that's all we're after.
>>
>
> It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it
> will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a
> non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright
> claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized
> legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone
> to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
>
> --
> Robert Treat
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so > the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the license? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
At 9:18 PM -0500 3/9/06, Bruce Momjian wrote: >Robert Treat wrote: >> On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote: >> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> > > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright >> > > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does. >> > >> > Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development >> > Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the >> > one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else >> > then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually >> > contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now) >> > then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay >> > attention to if you're redistributing. >> > >> > > It is very good to keep everything consistent. >> > >> > Yup, that's all we're after. >> > >> >> It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal >>trouble than it >> will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a >> non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright >> claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized >> legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone >> to attempt to gain ownership of the code. > >With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so >the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. IANAL, but as I understand things, it's not possible to disclaim ownership of something. That's why the BSD license is preferable to "public domain". In most legal jurisdictions, liability (for whatever) belongs to the copyright holder. By adding a license, particularly one as liberal as the BSD license, you're setting rules for how the code can be used, _and those rules can disclaim liability_. Essentially, if you take responsibility for something, you can legally insist that others use it responsibly (and if they don't, they broke your rules so it's not your fault.) Again, IANAL, but my $0.02 would be that copyright always stay with some legal entity, either the individual authors, or some actual holding company. Distributed individual copyrights (like the WU-FTPD example) seem to provide the most protection for preserving the license status quo, since everyone on the list would have to agree to change it. OTOH, an LLC or similar entity can shield individual authors from legal liability. (Though the license itself might be sufficient.) -pmb
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck`s name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
"Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think everyone realizes at this point that the PGDG is not an official legal entity, but do we at least have a modern statement from Core as to what it is unofficially? In other words, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is composed of ________ My two cents: keep the individual copyrights in, or have each person sign a document transferring ownership to some other entity. (Just want to point out that MySQL has chosen the second option. ;) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200603092141 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEEOdyvJuQZxSWSsgRAo7NAJ9MYb23xG5ZSaj/l+8yTgUv/JKXpQCfe3EI yUkiB0+RpyhSrXFyg1OpVIU= =sljL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard > > boilerplate, with approval of author. > > I really don't see why or how this is an improvement. But if no one > else cares about it, so be it ... > > I wonder what would have happened if I had stuck my name in the > autovacuum.c, pg_shdepend.c or multixact.c files (wow, I did really come > up with all that stuff!) I know Tom hacked extensively on all of them, > so his name would also be there :-) I wonder why we do not remove copyright notice of UCB at all. It seems a kind of double standard. BTW, In my understanding contrib is the exception. As someone has pointed out, contribs are "second citizen" and maybe are kicked out to pgfoundry or whatever anytime if people think they are not appropreate to live there. In this case the author of the module would not want to waste of his/her time to rewrite the copyright notice... -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so > > the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. > > if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the > license? You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to their version. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: [ There is text before PGP section. ] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I think everyone realizes at this point that the PGDG is not > an official legal entity, but do we at least have a modern > statement from Core as to what it is unofficially? In other > words, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is > composed of ________ > > My two cents: keep the individual copyrights in, or have each > person sign a document transferring ownership to some > other entity. (Just want to point out that MySQL has chosen > the second option. ;) MySQL had to because they sell commercial versions that are non-GPL. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>> With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so >>> the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. >> >> if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the >> license? > > You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If > someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to > their version. 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > >>> With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so > >>> the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. > >> > >> if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the > >> license? > > > > You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If > > someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to > > their version. > > 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the > appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"? Nothing. I think it is good. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>> >> You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If >> someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to >> their version. > > 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the > appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"? It becomes an issue should the license ever become contested. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 > -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?
I wouldn't object to "Portions copyright Joe Blow" in addition to the
PGDG copyright notice. The big problem with the way that the plpgsql
and pltcl files stood was that they also had their own license notices,
which while generally BSD-like were not exactly the same as the top
COPYRIGHT file. That I think is a seriously bad idea. We ought to have
one and only one set of license terms for everything in the core
distribution.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: >> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the >> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"? > > I wouldn't object to "Portions copyright Joe Blow" in addition to the > PGDG copyright notice. The big problem with the way that the plpgsql > and pltcl files stood was that they also had their own license notices, > which while generally BSD-like were not exactly the same as the top > COPYRIGHT file. That I think is a seriously bad idea. We ought to have > one and only one set of license terms for everything in the core > distribution. re: license ... agreed ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck`s name from copyrights, and put in standard
From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I think everyone realizes at this point that the PGDG is not > an official legal entity, but do we at least have a modern > statement from Core as to what it is unofficially? In other > words, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is > composed of ________ Under international copyright law, the copyright is held by the authors of the work, no matter what you write into a copyright notice, if any. The only purpose of the copyright notices under discussion here is to notify the recipient of the file that this file belongs to the PostgreSQL source code, the authors of the code claim to have copyright, and you should check the license before doing anything further. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/