Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
> consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...
>
> Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens?
>
> The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
>
> "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
>
> Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?

The new license should clearly make it impossible to later
pull out things again. To stay with me as example, what would
happen if I take out PL/pgSQL, FOREIGN KEY (not all mine I
know), the fixes to the rewriter and so on. They all where
contributed under the old license, so I still hold the
copyright on 'em - don't I. Can a new license change the
legal state of previous contributions? I don't think so. What
do we have to do to reversely apply this "irrevocable" term
to all so far done contributions?

And some words to all the people who think GPL is better.
IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing everything
that uses a little snippet of open code to be open too
doesn't have anything to do with free software. There are a
couple of things Open Source can never offer. For example a
native DB-link interface between a Postgres DB and a
commercial one might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
useful thing that must be a closed source product, so what
would it be good for to make it's development impossible?

If someone needs a feature and is willing to pay alot money
to get it right now, why shouldn't a company or some
individual grab it and implement the feature. At some point,
those will learn that it is a good idea to contribute these
things to the free source too, because they'll get rid of
most maintainence efford and gain that future development on
our side doesn't collide with what they're responsible for.
It's so obvious to me that I don't need a license that
enforces it from the very first second.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #