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

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Date: 2000-07-04 15:13:05
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20000705011305.0255f7e0@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>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?

I am (still) waiting to hear from my IP lawyer, but it is my understanding
that if Jan puts TOAST into CVS, then he has given an implied license for
use to use it in the open source project. As a result I doubt he could
actually force it's removal. What he could do is stop a third party from
using it in another product. This does not seem bad to me.

Unfortunately, with your revised clause, he no longer has that right.

Why not just leave the clause out? The more you diverge from BSD, the more
you make me want GPL.

>The only change in this is the "Juristiction" para is removed ... I've
>read this over several times now, and personal feel that all its doing is
>extending the existing copyright to cover *ALL* developers, and not just
>the "UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA" ones ...

It's reducing the rights of developers.

>I consider it an appendum to the existing copyright ... I don't know, does
>that make it any less BSD/open?

I think it does; but I'd be open to any reason why I as a developer should
feel stronger as a result of your suggested clause.

Certainly if I were a private company who wanted to use PG, I would feel
more comfortable with this clause, but that is not how you are marketing it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2000-07-04 15:51:14 Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-07-04 14:42:00 Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karel Zak 2000-07-04 15:18:48 Re: [HACKERS] Statistical aggregates
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2000-07-04 15:08:35 Re: Re: PDF book July 2, 2000 version