Thread: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Background info: Fedora/Red Hat folks (not Tom...) changed license in
PostgreSQL spec file from BSD to MIT with the following notice:

# PG considers their license to be simplified BSD, but it's more nearly
MIT

Our license wording fits perfectly to MIT, if I'm not wrong. However, we
always advertise ourselves as using BSD license.

Personally I don't think it is a big issue, but eventually I'd like to
clarify our license in our website.

...so that I and Tom will use same License tags ;)

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org  Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
way forward.

On 10/25/09, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
>
> Background info: Fedora/Red Hat folks (not Tom...) changed license in
> PostgreSQL spec file from BSD to MIT with the following notice:
>
> # PG considers their license to be simplified BSD, but it's more nearly
> MIT
>
> Our license wording fits perfectly to MIT, if I'm not wrong. However, we
> always advertise ourselves as using BSD license.
>
> Personally I don't think it is a big issue, but eventually I'd like to
> clarify our license in our website.
>
> ...so that I and Tom will use same License tags ;)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
> Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com
> devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
> http://www.gunduz.org  Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
>


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
David Fetter
Date:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
> way forward.

Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here?

Apart from the legal part, what other topics does this touch on?

When I go out to do advocacy, it's good for me to know as much as I
can about the issues involved :)

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Tom Lane
Date:
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
>> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
>> way forward.

> Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here?

None really: the Postgres license is what it is.  This discussion is
just about what is the simplest description of it.  Red Hat has decided
that it fits in their "MIT" pigeonhole better than it fits in their
"BSD" pigeonhole.  If you compare the OSI definitions of these licenses:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
our wording is not a terribly exact match to either, but RH's lawyers
think it's closer to MIT.  The key point is that they consider "BSD"
to include the no-endorsement clause and possibly the advertising
clause, and we have neither.

OSI uses the phrase "simplified BSD" to refer to BSD-derived licenses
without either of those two clauses.  Red Hat has decided to call them
MIT instead.  As best I can tell there's no really important distinction
between simplified BSD terms and MIT terms, so there is not a lot of
point in arguing which one ours is.

If anyone comes up to you and starts asking questions about two-clause
vs three-clause vs four-clause BSD, the answer is that we use the most
liberal variant.  Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.
        regards, tom lane


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
David Fetter
Date:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
> >> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
> >> way forward.
> 
> > Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here?
> 
> None really: the Postgres license is what it is.  This discussion is
> just about what is the simplest description of it.  Red Hat has decided
> that it fits in their "MIT" pigeonhole better than it fits in their
> "BSD" pigeonhole.  If you compare the OSI definitions of these licenses:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> our wording is not a terribly exact match to either, but RH's lawyers
> think it's closer to MIT.

Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
are pretty much on our side, I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or
2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion.  Thanks! :)

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
2009/10/26 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>:

> Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
> are pretty much on our side,

They're not really. They're just interested in doing things the right
way for Redhat users (which is fine - that's what they're paid for).

> I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or
> 2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion.  Thanks! :)

I've also spoken to a lawyer about this, and he concurred that our
licence is more MIT-like in the way that its worded. It has roughly
the same requirements as the simplified BSD though - but then so do a
bunch of other OSI approved licences.

As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
based on or looks like.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.

If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?

ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
licence because of it being widely misdescribed.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.
>
> If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?

Because they categorise licences to help their users. It's just a label.

> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
> that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
> licence because of it being widely misdescribed.

Already in hand.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:13 +0000, Dave Page wrote:

> > ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> > refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
> > that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
> > licence because of it being widely misdescribed.
> 
> Already in hand.

OK, nose retracted.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:13 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> > ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>> > refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
>> > that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
>> > licence because of it being widely misdescribed.
>>
>> Already in hand.
>
> OK, nose retracted.

:-)



-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Jaime Casanova
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>

IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
think in change our license i think...
even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
sold just as MySQL was...

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>>
>
> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
> think in change our license i think...
> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
> sold just as MySQL was...

Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Jaime Casanova
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
>> think in change our license i think...
>> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
>> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
>> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
>> sold just as MySQL was...
>
> Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.
>

to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
if the wording doesn't change...

that's because we have years telling people our license is BSD like
and is very liberal, if we change the way we label our license we have
to change that and say our license is MIT like and when you do that
the question will arise: "what was that change for?" and you will
explain that the license hadn't changed but the mind of the users is
not listening anymore it's very busy trying to find for themselves
hidden reasons and they will find them even if that reasons doesn't
exist.

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>>>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
>>> think in change our license i think...
>>> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
>>> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
>>> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
>>> sold just as MySQL was...
>>
>> Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.
>>
>
> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
> if the wording doesn't change...

So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>> if the wording doesn't change...

> So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.

I'm of the opinion that we should continue to say that it's simplified
BSD.  It's not our problem that Red Hat has chosen not to use that
terminology (which OSI uses, so it's not like there's no precedent).
Red Hat has an interest in minimizing the number of pigeonholes they
classify things into, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care.

I quite agree with Jaime that starting to call ourselves MIT rather than
BSD would be a public-relations disaster.
        regards, tom lane


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>>> if the wording doesn't change...
>
>> So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.
>
> I'm of the opinion that we should continue to say that it's simplified
> BSD.  It's not our problem that Red Hat has chosen not to use that
> terminology (which OSI uses, so it's not like there's no precedent).
> Red Hat has an interest in minimizing the number of pigeonholes they
> classify things into, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care.

Except it is not the simplified BSD - it's notably different. That's
Redhat's argument, and was also the comment that the lawyer I spoke to
made.

> I quite agree with Jaime that starting to call ourselves MIT rather than
> BSD would be a public-relations disaster.

You already know I agree with that :-)

I'm working on getting the licence through the OSI approval process.
When/if that is done, I expect we'll have 'The PostgreSQL License'
which we can then describe as being *similar* to the simplified BSD.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Chris Browne
Date:
dpage@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes:
> As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
> is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
> based on or looks like.

There may be a fairly miniscule one...

There do exist "GPL zealots" that bash, as "not free" (in the sense
that people are doubtless well aware of), stuff licensed under a "BSD
license."

There may be some non-zero advantage to saying "MIT style," in that
this changes coasts ;-) and takes a micro-step away from the political
aspects of "BSD vs GPL."

But I'm not disagreeing with you, by any means!  :-)
-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com';
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/emacs.html
"I really only meant to point out how nice InterOp was for someone who
doesn't  have the weight of the  Pentagon behind him.   I really don't
imagine that the Air Force will ever be  able to operate like a small,
competitive enterprise like GM or IBM." -- Kent England


Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From
Dave Page
Date:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
> dpage@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes:
>> As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
>> is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
>> based on or looks like.
>
> There may be a fairly miniscule one...
>
> There do exist "GPL zealots" that bash, as "not free" (in the sense
> that people are doubtless well aware of), stuff licensed under a "BSD
> license."

Having run into such people before, I was going to make some
obsersations on that comment, but on second though I think such
endangerment of one's own life is reckless and unnecessary :-p

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start