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

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:

> 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.

Wait ... you had me on the first section, but this second one does confuse
me ... "reducing the rights of developers" applies to the "Any person who
contributes..." clause, or the BOLD liability clauses?

I'm definitely not sold on the "Any person who contributes or submits any
modification..." clause, and *if* your IP lawyer comes back that your
understanding is accurate, I'm even less sold on it ... look forward to
hearing back on that ...

For me, the only thing that I really like is the three extra BOLD paras
that extend the protection from liability to encompass ALL DEVELOPERS
instead of just "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", which I don't believe any of
us falls under? :)