Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ
Date: 2007-03-03 03:16:22
Message-ID: 200703030316.l233GMu06511@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> >>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> >>>
> >>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
> >>> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> >>> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> >>> patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under
> >>> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> >>> email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> >>> please do not post the patch.</li>
> >> How about something simpler:
> >>
> >> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
> >> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
> >> ignored.</li>
> >
> > No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists. There is too
> > much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
> > with a BSD license.
>
> Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my
> clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).
>
> In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no
> desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two
> sentences. We could adjust a bit though:
>
> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept
> patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be
> rejected.</li>
>
> Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO"
> to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.

Agreed we want simple wording. The existing complexity is caused by
trying to explain that if basing a patch on a BSD-compatibile license,
we need to know about it. Your wording doesn't have that distinction.
Perhaps the distinction isn't important. I didn't write that particular
part of the FAQ myself.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2007-03-03 03:26:24 Re: FYI - another open source tpc-c kit
Previous Message Mark Wong 2007-03-03 03:15:57 FYI - another open source tpc-c kit