Thread: Patch license update to developer's FAQ
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you aregiving the PostgreSQL Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL), please do not post the patch.</li> -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>
> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under
> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> please do not post the patch.</li>
How about something simpler:
<li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
ignored.</li>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > > non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: > > > > <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL > > Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your > > patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under > > a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your > > email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL), > > please do not post the patch.</li> > > How about something simpler: > > <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are > submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be > ignored.</li> No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists. There is too much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented with a BSD license. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want >>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: >>> >>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch >>> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL >>> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your >>> patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under >>> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your >>> email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL), >>> please do not post the patch.</li> >> How about something simpler: >> >> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are >> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be >> ignored.</li> > > No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists. There is too > much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented > with a BSD license. Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;). In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two sentences. We could adjust a bit though: <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be rejected.</li> Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring. Thoughts? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > >>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: > >>> > >>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > >>> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL > >>> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your > >>> patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under > >>> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your > >>> email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL), > >>> please do not post the patch.</li> > >> How about something simpler: > >> > >> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are > >> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be > >> ignored.</li> > > > > No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists. There is too > > much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented > > with a BSD license. > > Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my > clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;). > > In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no > desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two > sentences. We could adjust a bit though: > > <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept > patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be > rejected.</li> > > Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" > to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring. Agreed we want simple wording. The existing complexity is caused by trying to explain that if basing a patch on a BSD-compatibile license, we need to know about it. Your wording doesn't have that distinction. Perhaps the distinction isn't important. I didn't write that particular part of the FAQ myself. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: How frequently is this actually a problem? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > > non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: > > How frequently is this actually a problem? I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text: <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you aregiving the PostgreSQL Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your patch under the BSD license. If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it will be rejected.</li> -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>
> How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > >> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: > > > > How frequently is this actually a problem? > > Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big > legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about. Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit about it because the old wording didn't address this directly. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
>
> I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if you also
> think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text:
>
> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> patch under the BSD license. If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it
> will be rejected.</li>
This is good, and it is really important that we add this to the signup
pages and welcome pages for -hackers and -patches.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
>> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
>> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
>
> Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
> about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.
The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want > >>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches: > >>> How frequently is this actually a problem? > >> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big > >> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about. > > > > Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit > > about it because the old wording didn't address this directly. > > The wording you just posted up thread seemed to... The issue is that people with those signatures don't think they are submitting under a non-BSD license. I thought you were saying we need to address that directly. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>>>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>>>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
>>>> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
>>>> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
>>> Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
>>> about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.
>> The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...
>
> The issue is that people with those signatures don't think they are
> submitting under a non-BSD license. I thought you were saying we need
> to address that directly.
Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of > the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is > zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we > made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the > first email they get from the list software) it told them again. Do you actually believe people read those? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
>> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
>> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
>> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
>> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
>
> Do you actually believe people read those?
Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
*you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
> >> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
> >> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
> >> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
> >> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
> >
> > Do you actually believe people read those?
>
> Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
> *you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.
>
As long as we're pretending that were doing this right, we ought to add the
notice as part of the list signup message that is sent out to anyone how
signs up to the list.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
>>>> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
>>>> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
>>>> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
>>>> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
>>> Do you actually believe people read those?
>> Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
>> *you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.
>>
>
> As long as we're pretending that were doing this right, we ought to add the
> notice as part of the list signup message that is sent out to anyone how
> signs up to the list.
Yes I mentioned that up thread :)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
> I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if > you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text: > > <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL > Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your > patch under the BSD license. If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it > will be rejected.</li> I would remove the last sentence, since it puts the responsibility back on the group (namely to actively reject). Andreas
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if > > you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text: > > > > <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a > patch > > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the > PostgreSQL > > Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute > your > > patch under the BSD license. If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it > > will be rejected.</li> > > I would remove the last sentence, since it puts the responsibility back > on the group (namely to actively reject). Done. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +