Re: [GENERAL] Installing DBD::Pg
At 15:17 4/07/00 +1000, Sean Carmody wrote: perl -MCPAN -eshell. This failed and I got the message "please set the environment variables POSTGRES_INCLUDE and POSTGRES_LIB!". I'm not sure what to set these to, or even if this approach will work given that I intalled via rpm rather than having the source. Any thoughts? They need to be set to /usr/local/pgsql/include and /usr/local/pgsql/lib on most systems; basically, they point to where the PG include lib files are. (if you run SuSE, they may be under /var/lib/pgsql). 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 |/
Re: [GENERAL] psql dumps core
"K. Ari Krupnikov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: psql on the clent machime aborts with this message: psql:recreate-dbdom-db.pgsql:4: \connect: pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly. This probably means the backend terminated abnormally before or while processing the request. Segmentation fault (core dumped) I get a core dump in the current directory on the client. No advice possible with so little information. What is the query that triggers the crash? What are the definitions of the tables used in the query? Can you get a backtrace from the psql coredump (and also from the backend coredump, if there is one ... which seems likely)? regards, tom lane
Re: [GENERAL] number of weeks
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining of the year or the number of days date_part() or to_char() BTW. --- what is bad on postgresql docs? Karel
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
-On [2704 08:00], Thomas Lockhart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons: 1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications must do so under the same licence. Submits to what or whom? It is *not* trying to be GPL. It is trying to be BSD, while extending liability protection to the current cast of developers, who are (I'm pretty sure) not covered in any of the wording of the UCB-generated license. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF * SUCH DAMAGE. Seems pretty clear to me. ``In no event shall the author or contributors be liable for any...'' Anyways, why do people always have to start whole threads on -announce? Reply-to set. Please honour it. -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodaiasmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai Malam bulan dipagar bintang makin indah jika dipandang bagai gadis beri senyuman pada bujang idaman...
[ANNOUNCE] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
[ANNOUNCE] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: IMHO we'd be damned fools to ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not a good defense mechanism. I think virtually everybody is happy with the extra disclaimer. It the other parts that bother me. 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 |/
Re: [GENERAL] number of weeks
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining of the year or the number of days -- Week number of the year to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'WW'); -- Day number of the year to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'DDD'); See the documentation at: http://www.comptechnews.com/~reaster/postgres/functions2976.htm -- Robert B. Easter
Re: [GENERAL] psql dumps core
Tom Lane wrote: "K. Ari Krupnikov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: psql on the clent machime aborts with this message: psql:recreate-dbdom-db.pgsql:4: \connect: pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly. This probably means the backend terminated abnormally before or while processing the request. Segmentation fault (core dumped) I get a core dump in the current directory on the client. No advice possible with so little information. What is the query that triggers the crash? What are the definitions of the tables used in the query? Can you get a backtrace from the psql coredump (and also from the backend coredump, if there is one ... which seems likely)? this sequence causes the crash # drop databse xxx; # create database xxx; # \c xxx; and i was wrong when i said the backend doesn't crash - it does. is there a limit on how many objects (tables, functions, etc) can be created and dropped iin postgres? -- K. Ari Krupnikov DBDOM - bridging XML and relational databases http://www.iter.co.il
Re: [GENERAL] ecpg and include files
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 02:08:17PM +0200, Jochen Weyermanns wrote: Path information and so on seem to be OK, moreover the ecpg used with option --v shows: ecpg - the postgresql preprocessor, version: 2.6.0 exec sql include ... search starts here: . /usr/local/include /usr/local/pgsql/include /usr/include End of search list. ( with sqlca.h at the right place: ls -l /usr/local/pgsql/include/sqlca.h leads to: -r--r--r-- 1 postgres daemon957 Jun 28 16:08 /usr/local/pgsql/include/sqlca.h ) The error message turns up even when I use ecpg -I/usr/loca/pgsql/include I'm at a loss here. I never expereienced something like this. What happens if you install sqlca.h into '.'? Michael -- Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
[ANNOUNCE] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: IMHO we'd be damned fools to ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not a good defense mechanism. FWIW, I think the disclaimer could be strengthened to protect people who sell the PostgreSQL CD, and people who offer it on servers, and people who apply patches from other people (who may not themselves be contributors or developers). It's just a box of worms - no source can be too open, and no indemnity can be too strong. 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 |/
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements toPostgreSQL license
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQLlicense
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity.
No, that's what the GPL does.
This is only an end user's reply but here goes...
And I feel alot more comfortable with the GPL as an end user. I *trust*
Richard Stallman...alot more than any johnny-come-lately. Peter's point
about the longevity of the Bersekeley licence is well taken.
To my knowledge, the BSD license has been used in one form or another for
at least 20 years and neither has any contributor ever been sued for
liability, nor was there any court case that concluded that the BSD
license is worth anything at all, nor has the developer or commercial
acceptance of any product ever been affected by this "untight" license.
[To be integrated with the software in such a way that this license
must be seen before downloading can occur]
That's funny...
Actually, that's frightening...more than a bit reminiscent of the old Bill.
I've invested *alot* of time in writing code that wraps around Pg.
Because of its OSS licence and Berkeley lineage.
Perhaps the end user should also have to enter a key to do the build.
And subsequently be pestered to register online for 'free updates'...
Maybe code could be worked in to reach out on the network to see if any
unauthorized binaries are in use.
The foregoing shall be governed by and construed under the laws of
the State of Virginia.
The recurring theme throughout this email was that Great Bridge has
apparently not appreciated that PostgreSQL land extends beyond the borders
of the U.S. of A. Maybe your 32 focus groups in major U.S. cities wanted
the license changed like this, but I'll bet lunch that 32 out of 32 focus
groups in major European cities will look with extreme suspicion at
anything with "laws of the State of XXX" attached to it.
Until they realize that the laws of Virginia don't apply to them. Or to
Canada, where hub.org is located these days.
Ah, The Old Dominion. In NYC we have some of the toughest gun laws in
the US. But they are largely ineffective (aside from blocking honest
citizens access to sporting firearms). You see all sorts of guns flow in
illegally from states that don't enforce their laws. Like Virginia.
The end result is that hospital ERs continue to treat gunshot wounds.
Rewriting the GPL or BSD licence sounds like reinventing the wheel...
Unless of course there is another agenda.
SVCMC - Center for Behavioral Health
Thomas Good tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
IS Coordinator / DBA Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056
Powered by: PostgreSQL s l a c k w a r e FreeBSD:
RDBMS |-- linux The Power To Serve
[GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory. Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (because any licence change will be forever), you are subject to that law forever no matter how stupid it may get. For that reason I don't think you should be naming a jurisdiction. You don't know what that jurisdiction may do in the future. Now any normal corporation in this event could just change their licence to jurisdiction B which has more favourable laws. Open source can't change the licence ever unless you assign the rights to every bit of submitted code like RMS insists on for GNU code. If you must pick a jurisdiction pick Australia. We are *much* less litigious. :-) Actually, pick Sealand. They have no laws and no courts.
[GENERAL] Visual Basic/ODBC/PostgreSQL
Hi!
I'm having troubles in changing an application that was written in
Visual Basic. It originally accesses a MS Access database file, via Jet,
and I'm helping the programmer to change it to use ODBC to connect to a
PostgreSQL Server, running on top of a Linux Box.
The first problem I have was that the database was always opened as
"read-only". I don't know why, but when we added a primary key, then the
database can be opened to write. Another change was the configuration of
the ODBC driver, that I change to recognize indexed fields (or something
like this). This part is OK. The program can connect to the database,
and open records, changes it, and saves its changes.
The next problem, that I cannot figure how to correct, was to permit
multi-user access to the database. What I need is that when someone
opens one register to change it, all the other users cannot do the same,
until the changes are done.
I have tried the "BEGIN WORK/END", with "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE", but it
appears to have no effect on the database. Then I make it the difficult
way: I have created a field that, when filled, contains the username of
the user that have blocked the register. If the field is empty, then the
record can be changed. It works.
But I'm with some problems here: when someone send any command to the
database, no other user can even connect to it. If user 'A' and user 'B'
start the program at the same time, only one of them can connect. The
other gets an error and must try again. New attempt and it's OK, but I
think it's not the right way to do the job. I also noted at the Linux
that, when user 'A' is using the application, several instances of
postgres appears at the memory of the server. Is it normal?
Being able to do multi-user programming with Visual Basic and MDB files,
I think the changing to use a RDBMS is not straight, but I cannot figure
out what the changes I need to do, or the right way to program an
application this way. The help files that come with Visual Basic doesn't
help much. The documentation that comes with PostgreSQL presumes the
reader know how to program database applications (I'm thinking it's not
my case...).
Can someone points me some docs (I prefer on-line documents...) that can
help me (I think that teach basic database/multiuser programming is far
beyond the objective of the list, but I hope someone can tells me the
way I need to do these things)?
I'm using:
Visual Basic 5.0
PostgreSQL ODBC driver 6.5 ("Insight Distribution Systems")
PostgreSQL 7.0 (RPM binary distribution)
Conectiva Linux 5.0 (Linux 2.2.14)
TIA
--
Cesar A. K. Grossmann
[GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Chris Bitmead wrote: Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (because any licence change will be forever), you are subject to that law forever no matter how stupid it may get. Besides, it effectively reduces the rights of any non-US developers to zero for sheer cost reasons, as they'd have to defend them in a Virginia (or at any rate US) court. And liabilities issues are far more likely to crop up in the US than anywhere else, where sueing for damages seems to be a profitable business. Sevo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] Installing DBD::Pg
Sean Carmody wrote: Forgive any blatant ignorance, but maybe someone can help here. I've installed PostgreSQL 7.0 using the rpm on a Redhat 6.2 setup and was hoping to do a quick install of the Perl DBD::Pg module using perl -MCPAN -eshell. This failed and I got the message "please set the environment variables POSTGRES_INCLUDE and POSTGRES_LIB!". I'm not sure what to set these to, or even if this approach will work given that I intalled via rpm rather than having the source. Any thoughts? For the RPM distribution, set POSTGRES_INCLUDE to /usr/include/pgsql, and POSTGRES_LIB to /usr/lib/pgsql -- although, depending upon what DBD::Pg needs about LIBs, you may want to set POSTGRES_LIB to /usr/lib. Or you can install the DBD::Pg RPM's -- see www.rpmfind.net to locate. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [GENERAL] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
One thing to keep in mind: for a very long time, PostgreSQL was the *only* free ("free
as in free speech, not free as in free beer") DBMS. I told dozens of people to
consider PostgreSQL instead of, say, MySQL, for that very reason. Whichever free
software licence you preferred, there was no real choice.
Now, it is no longer the case: as you have read here, MySQL is now fully GPL. The
concurrency between the two DBMS will increase. Since MySQL has a licence which is
more hacker-friendly (it cannot be turned into a proprietary product), PostgreSQL,
which had (along with techincal strengthes) a big advantage with its licence, is now
behind.
[GENERAL] Can't unsubscribe
I have been unsubscribed for 2 days, then all of the sudden I was re-subscribed today. When I try to unsubscribe again using either of my email addresses, it says I don't exist. But I am getting these messages. I am assuming that the mailing list machine was restored or something (I received some old posts today). Any ideas on what may be happening? - Stephen Lawrence Jr.
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQLlicense
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: 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 grant you that, but as Chris pointed out the proposed change may actually have a net negative effect, namely bringing those outside the reach of the American legal system withing it, and at the same time not doing anything for other silly legal systems. I, and I think most others, don't have a problem with repeating the existing boilerplate with s/Regents of the University of California/various contributors/g. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/Sweden
[GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
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 |/
[GENERAL] 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? :)
Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
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. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
[GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
Philip Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] el día Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:13:12 +1000, escribió: As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would prefer to see it go GPL; I agree with this. (altough is not public domain, it's copywrigth'ed, well copyleft'ed). btw, if you change the license in this way, is =not= BSD anymore, how you will call this new license ? PPL (Postgres Public License) ? PBML (Postgres BSD Modified License) ? sergio
Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote: The new license should clearly make it impossible to later pull out things again. I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on code once contributed? If I distribute something under terms t(1), and then later distribute the same thing under terms t(2), even if terms t(2) revoke terms t(1), I can't go back and get the original distribution back. Now, in the case of something easily distributed (like code), if terms t(1) allow free distribution, then all one needs is to argue that one is copying that original distribution. Am I missing something? Because of the above, it seems to me that once some copyrighted work has been opened, it can't be closed again. Future developments by the original copyright owner can, of course, include the original copyrightedwork under different terms. But even the original copyright owner can't go back and change the license forsomething in the past, no? -- Andrew Sullivan Computer Services [EMAIL PROTECTED]Burlington Public Library +1 905 639 3611 x158 2331 New Street Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7R 1J4
Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote: The new license should clearly make it impossible to later pull out things again. I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on code once contributed? If I distribute something under terms t(1), and then later distribute the same thing under terms t(2), even if terms t(2) revoke terms t(1), I can't go back and get the original distribution back. Now, in the case of something easily distributed (like code), if terms t(1) allow free distribution, then all one needs is to argue that one is copying that original distribution. Am I missing something? Because of the above, it seems to me that once some copyrighted work has been opened, it can't be closed again. Future developments by the original copyright owner can, of course, include the original copyrightedwork under different terms. But even the original copyright owner can't go back and change the license forsomething in the past, no? To the best of *my* knowledge, a copyright cannot be retro-actively imposed on software ... but, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so may be wrong on this ... I *believe* what Jan was getting at was that the copyright should be made such that, as our example has gone so far, if his TOAST contribution falls under said copyright, he can't, at some later date, decide to pull *his* code out of the tree ... but, it only works "from that day forward", not retro-actively on any previous code he's submitted ...
Re: [GENERAL] responses to licensing discussion
Philip Warner wrote: At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote: Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's from the code? Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable. That's why they're there. Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true". Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you have no contract with is pretty tenuous.
Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
That depends on what your market is - for businesses who wants to be able to hide source, yes. For businesses who use it, being sure the source is available is the best - which the GPL guarantees. BSD gives the middle man more freedom to screw the end user ;) Well, we all want more freedom, right? (please note sarcastic tone ;) What we'd like to propose is a general tightening up of what the existing license is *supposed* to be doing in the first place - protecting the developers who worked on the code, and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity. GPL would solve this - the main advantage of BSDish licenses is you can go closed source if you want to. I imagine that RH has extensive ongoing internal discussions of licenses. Is there a "company opinion" that the main advantage of BSD is that you can go closed source? imho an advantage of BSD is that there is no question that you can use the open source anywhere you want, at any time, mixed with any other code you want. For some, that might be a "main advantage"; for others, a "don't care". Can't really see it as a negative from my PoV. Now, I don't advocate a change in license - my main consern is "there are enough licenses in the world". I think the "each package one license" is a bad trend. Me too. PostgreSQL has been distributed with a plain-vanilla BSD license forever. We would like to keep it that way. But BSD doesn't say anything about developers outside of the UC system, so in the long run we probably need to do something to address that. And I don't know about any BSD licenses or existing offshoots which do that (though I haven't looked much beyond the packages I already know). istm that in most cases "companies with lawyers" go for something much tighter and more restrictive than BSD or the recently suggested modification. Regards. - Thomas
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Philip Warner wrote: My legal advice is that, assuming they knew it was a BSD project, they can't take it out of PostgreSQL. But you could, for example, stop Microsoft using your compression code in one of their products. The new license removes this right from you. Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its terms and conditions?
Re: [GENERAL] responses to licensing discussion
At 15:11 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote: Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true". Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you have no contract with is pretty tenuous. They key issue here (I'd guess) is where the software came from. But I agree - it's just a total nightmare when you start getting into this. eg. one of the questions I am waiting on an answer for if whether Marc can be sued because he provided the software from his server. 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 |/
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
At 15:15 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote: Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its terms and conditions? I am told that the most likely interpretation of this is that it is for use in PostgreSQL or one of its descendants. The new clause changes that to 'any use whatsoever'. 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 |/
