Thread: License clarification: BSD vs MIT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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