Thread: Issues regarding code license of ported code.
Hi all, My name is Francisco Figueiredo Jr. I'm one of the maintainers of Npgsql, .Net Data Provider for postgresql. Some time ago I received a patch to Npgsql to add support for large objects. The patch was mainly a port of the large object support code of jdbc. I'd like to know how I could integrate this code as Npgsql is licensed under LGPL. I mean, can the ported code be licensed under LGPL and keeping a note about being derivative work of your BSD code? Or can I just mix the two licenses? Or something else? Also, I think this ported code will receive some modifications to be integrated into current Npgsql architecture. What do I do with the splitted code? How do I put a notice about this ported code which is being used? I put a messega in header like that: "This code uses ported code from jdbc driver" ?? Thanks in advance. Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:30:45 -0300 "Francisco Figueiredo Jr." <fxjrlists@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> Some time ago I received a patch to Npgsql to add support for large
> objects. The patch was mainly a port of the large object support code of
> jdbc.
> I'd like to know how I could integrate this code as Npgsql is licensed
> under LGPL.
> I mean, can the ported code be licensed under LGPL and keeping a note
> about being derivative work of your BSD code? Or can I just mix the two
> licenses? Or something else?
i would say that as the author and copyright holder of the code, you
can license it however you want. you are not obligated to release it
under only one license, you can, for example, provide a copy of the
same code under the BSD license if you so desire.
if someone else wrote the code, and holds the copyright, you can
take it up with them.
if there are dozens of authors, it gets harder. but it's important to remember
that the BSD license and the GPL/LGPL licenses are _licenses_,
supplements to copyright, and the copyright holder has the power to make
the choice about the license.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Richard Welty wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:30:45 -0300 "Francisco Figueiredo Jr." <fxjrlists@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > >>Some time ago I received a patch to Npgsql to add support for large >>objects. The patch was mainly a port of the large object support code of >>jdbc. > > >>I'd like to know how I could integrate this code as Npgsql is licensed >>under LGPL. > > >>I mean, can the ported code be licensed under LGPL and keeping a note >>about being derivative work of your BSD code? Or can I just mix the two >>licenses? Or something else? > > > i would say that as the author and copyright holder of the code, you > can license it however you want. you are not obligated to release it > under only one license, you can, for example, provide a copy of the > same code under the BSD license if you so desire. > > if someone else wrote the code, and holds the copyright, you can > take it up with them. > > if there are dozens of authors, it gets harder. but it's important to remember > that the BSD license and the GPL/LGPL licenses are _licenses_, > supplements to copyright, and the copyright holder has the power to make > the choice about the license. > > richard Hi Richard, Thanks for reply. This is the header of the LargeObject.java I have from 7.4.3: /*------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * LargeObject.java * This class implements the large object interface to org.postgresql. * * Copyright (c) 2003, PostgreSQL Global Development Group * * IDENTIFICATION * $Header: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/interfaces/jdbc/org/postgresql/largeobject/Attic/LargeObject.java,v 1.10 2003/03/07 18:39:45 barry Exp $ * *------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ So, the copyright is not from a single person which means I can't contact the person who did it. There is no sign of who is the author too. Do you know who may be the author? Also, do you know what would be other care I should take when integrating the code? I mean, do I have to distribute the BSD license? Do I have to add a note about the use of BSD derivative work? I read the BSD license and I could see it is very simple and easy to use, but I just want to be sure if I'm not missing anything. Thanks in advance. Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:24:00 -0300 "Francisco Figueiredo Jr." <fxjrlists@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> So, the copyright is not from a single person which means I can't
> contact the person who did it. There is no sign of who is the author too.
> Do you know who may be the author?
well, the copyright is held by the "PostgreSQL Global Development
Group", which is an uncorporated association. i'd say that you should
treat this as meaning the PostgreSQL core team.
> Also, do you know what would be other care I should take when
> integrating the code? I mean, do I have to distribute the BSD license?
> Do I have to add a note about the use of BSD derivative work?
> I read the BSD license and I could see it is very simple and easy to
> use, but I just want to be sure if I'm not missing anything.
the BSD license is what it is, and says what it says. it's about the
simplest license out there, and i wouldn't worry about any tricks.
you will need to distribute the license and specify somewhere that
BSD licensed code copyrighted by the postgresql global development
group is included. there are various examples of how to do this scattered
about the net.
people do what they will do with licensing, but as a general rule,
i recommend that adjuncts to BSD licensed projects should stick
with a BSD style license, and adjuncts to a GPL/LGPL style project
should stick with that type of license. otherwise, you end up in
confusing situations like the one you're facing.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. wrote: > So, the copyright is not from a single person which means I can't > contact the person who did it. There is no sign of who is the author too. You only need to contact the author(s) if you want to relicense the code. You don't need to relicense anything to include it in your work, that's the beauty of the BSD license. You just need to retain the original copyright and license notice. Especially since our version of the BSD license doesn't have the advertising clause. If you just keep these files (and any of your contributions) licensed as BSD there won't be any confusion and you can include it in your project. Kris Jurka
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net> wrote:
> well, the copyright is held by the "PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group", which is an uncorporated association.
argh, that should have said "unincorporated".
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Richard Welty wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:24:00 -0300 "Francisco Figueiredo Jr." <fxjrlists@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > >>So, the copyright is not from a single person which means I can't >>contact the person who did it. There is no sign of who is the author too. > > >>Do you know who may be the author? > > > well, the copyright is held by the "PostgreSQL Global Development > Group", which is an uncorporated association. i'd say that you should > treat this as meaning the PostgreSQL core team. > Ok. > >>Also, do you know what would be other care I should take when >>integrating the code? I mean, do I have to distribute the BSD license? >>Do I have to add a note about the use of BSD derivative work? > > >>I read the BSD license and I could see it is very simple and easy to >>use, but I just want to be sure if I'm not missing anything. > > > the BSD license is what it is, and says what it says. it's about the > simplest license out there, and i wouldn't worry about any tricks. > you will need to distribute the license and specify somewhere that > BSD licensed code copyrighted by the postgresql global development > group is included. there are various examples of how to do this scattered > about the net. > Ok. I will do that. > people do what they will do with licensing, but as a general rule, > i recommend that adjuncts to BSD licensed projects should stick > with a BSD style license, and adjuncts to a GPL/LGPL style project > should stick with that type of license. otherwise, you end up in > confusing situations like the one you're facing. > Thanks. This is one of the most important things I'd like to hear. About how to license the ported code. Here is what I'm willing to do: Distribute the source and binary code with the bsd license. Add a note about usage of copyrighted Postgresql Global Development Group code. Add a note about original copyright in all 4 used files. Keep saying Npgsql is licensed as LGPL as the new ported code will be licensed under LGPL. Do you think this is ok? Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
> Keep saying Npgsql is licensed as LGPL as the new ported code will be > licensed under LGPL. the PostgreSQL project uses the BSD license. Why is Npgsql using LGPL ? .NET likely appeals primarily to business developers... Many businesses are ambivalent about GPL.
I'd also like to understand the use of the LPGL license on a postgresql interface? I'd go further than saying businesses are ambivalent about GPL, and or LPGL; in my experience business's prefer the freebsd license. Dave On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 18:08, John R Pierce wrote: > > Keep saying Npgsql is licensed as LGPL as the new ported code will be > > licensed under LGPL. > > the PostgreSQL project uses the BSD license. Why is Npgsql using LGPL ? > > .NET likely appeals primarily to business developers... Many businesses are > ambivalent about GPL. > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 14675561 www.postgresintl.com
Dave Cramer wrote: > I'd also like to understand the use of the LPGL license on a postgresql > interface? > Hi all. When I started this project, I had very little experience about licenses. I knew that LGPL were created to enable library projects and so I decided to use it. Sorry if I did a mistake about that. :( > I'd go further than saying businesses are ambivalent about GPL, and or > LPGL; in my experience business's prefer the freebsd license. > Yeah, today I know that! :) I could ask all developers who contributed to project their permission to change the code to bsd license, but, in IMHO, I think this wouldn't be necessary, as LGPL fullfills the requirements of Npgsql licensing. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. ;) I welcome all and any feedback possible about that. Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr.