Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Date: 2000-07-04 11:54:50
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0007040853500.833-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-announcepgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Note that I have no issues at all with the addition of the three BOLD
paragraphs ... it is the "under juristiction of the state of
Virginia" part that I have an issue with, as I've noticed, do those other
developers outside of the USofA ...



On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
> > by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
> > *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
> > contribute code which could make me a target for a lawsuit.
> 
> A further comment here: BSD and similar licenses have indeed been used
> successfully for a couple of decades --- within a community of like-
> minded hackers who wouldn't dream of suing each other in the first
> place.  Postgres is starting to get out into a colder and harder world.
> To name just one unpleasant scenario: if PG continues to be as
> successful as it has been, sooner or later Oracle will decide that we
> are a threat to their continued world domination.  Oracle have a
> longstanding reputation for playing dirty pool when they feel it
> necessary.  It'd be awfully convenient for them if they could eliminate
> the threat of Postgres with a couple of well-placed lawsuits hinging on
> the weaknesses of the existing PG license.  It'd hardly even cost them
> anything, if they can sue individual developers who have no funds for
> a major court case.
> 
> Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the
> sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are
> within its reach do need to worry about it.
> 
> I'm not opining here about the merits or weaknesses of Great Bridge's
> proposal.  (What I'd really like is to see some review from other
> legal experts --- surely there are some people on these mailing lists
> who can bring in their corporate legal departments to comment?)  But
> what we have here is a well-qualified lawyer telling us that we've got
> some problems in the existing license.  IMHO we'd be damned fools to
> ignore his advice completely.  Sticking your head in the sand is not
> a good defense mechanism.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org           secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org 


In response to

pgsql-announce by date

Next:From: Thomas GoodDate: 2000-07-04 13:00:44
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Previous:From: eisentrpDate: 2000-07-04 11:30:31
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-07-04 12:41:23
Subject: Re: heap_create with OID?
Previous:From: eisentrpDate: 2000-07-04 11:39:47
Subject: Re: pgsql/doc/TODO.detail (alpha default distinct flock fsync function limit null pg_shadow primary)

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Thomas GoodDate: 2000-07-04 13:00:44
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Previous:From: eisentrpDate: 2000-07-04 11:30:31
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group