Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:

> 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.

So you are in the "make no changes to existing license" camp? Or just
against that one para above?

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