Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL & the BSD License
>I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is >flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright >ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF >CALIFORNIA" ... all that is being proposed *at this time* is to add in >coverage for the period *since* '96 and extend that coverage to >include *all* developers, not just the Univesrity of California ... > Plus the language about USE IN TRADE, LOSS OF ENJOYMENT, INFRINGEMENT, etc. This make three categories of changes: 1) extent the term to 2000, 2) cover all developers, 3) cover more types of possible liability. I agree with and understand your concern about terming the current BSD license "flawed". That term should certainly not be associated with the objective and spirit of the BSD license - and the BSD license itsself has met those objectives for many years. How about the license needs to be "updated?" >Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that >still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual >developers ... > >If ppl feel that neither a) or b) above aren't considered flaws, then let >us leave well enough alone ... > >The wording in the 'DEVELOPERS' section of what I sent out last night is a >little more verbose, so we could cut it down to be exactly the same as the >BSD one, and 'trim the fat' ... so that all we are "changing" is >"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" to "DEVELOPERS", and leaving the rest of the >wording completely intact ... ? > >My personal feeling is that if the BSD license itself was so flawed, there >are at least another dozen projects out there that deal with commercial >enterprises on a larger scale then we do that would have done changes also >... I don't want to change the wording, I would just like to see it >extended to cover the ppl that are actually doing development and not just >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ... > >make sense? or are we just sitting here discussing changes to a license >that doesn't need changing? > Well, I agree that logically the license *does* need to be "updated" and it might make sense to update the types of liabilities and other parts of the license also. This is probably best done in stages, first notifying other BSD projects that PostgreSQL will update the BSD license (on July xx) by extending coverage to all developers and extending the term of coverage to 2000, and inviting them to do the same. (It only makes sense for them to do likewise) Some might choose to cover "contributors" instead of "developers" or other minor changes but I would think that such a limited and straightforward changes could still qualify as a "BSD license" At the same time, postgresql could contact people from other major BSD projects asking them to review the language that covers additional potential liabilities. This review should be made know to all BSD projects with some letter or email explaining that any ultimate or proposed changes would be as conservative as possible and that a draft will be made avaialable on x date for public review. The major BSD projects should be committed to adopting whatever results from this process as the "BSD license" or "revised/updated BSD license standard" or what have you so that there is no backtracking, forking, or just plain waste of people's time and resources. Obviously this should all be done in the most practical and efficient possible way. A working committee of a few people from different major projects who collect info and set deadlines/milestones might need to be formed. In the end, it may be that everyone decides that change is unnecessary, or too problematic, but everyone will know that the issues have been properly addressed and that all opinions have been heard and considered. I know that this seems like more trouble than it should be, and that the license issue seems to balloon into an unmanageable beast, but IMO, it really needs to be addressed in a comprehensive way for all but the most minor or perfunctual changes (adding years to the copyright, for example, does not change the license). It is made more difficult by the fact that there is no central source for administering/updating the license (as the GPL as the FSF). John Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL & the BSD License
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > > > The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can > > > see something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ... > > > > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I > > think this is *way* premature. > > > >From the feeling I got from those that have posted to the lists, what >is in the one I posted last night is agreeable to *everyone*, both >American and non-American, since it doesn't change the gist of the BSD >license, it only extends the umbrella of warranty/liability over all >of us ... > IMO, it is difficult to say that this is a "BSD license" unless there is a general agreement by those who use the (current) BSD license to adopt it as *the* BSD license. I fear that unilaterally changing the license, even if that change is deemed necessary and correct, may cause unnecessary confusion, and tends toward a competitive rather than cooperative atmosphere for standard setting. If the BSD license is flawed, then most projects using it should logically want to change it along with everyone else. But without consulting with/working with other major BSD license users, it is possible that postgesql will face a situation where it will have to consider changing it's "PostgreSQL license" to a new "BSD" license because the other BSD-license users have established a standard license that adds to or modifies the "Postgres license". This comment is in line with several others that have voiced concern about "yet another license". It simply seems more productive to proactively build a consensus for a new standard by including other BSD license users in discussions sooner rather than later. Unless, of course, the license is so flawed that a new license needs to be implemented immediately, without a such a larger and inclusive discussion. Yet, the license has been flawed for years - and other BSD-license users are in the same boat - wouldn't it be in their best interest to adopt an interim license also? John Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[GENERAL] Re: FreeBSD PostgreSQL7 port and v7.0.2
Hi: I am running FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE (i386). I want to install PostgreSQL v7.0.2 but the FreeBSD port maintainer is unable to update it (he writes: "I'm busy until 2000/06/27 because of CCIE certification.") The current port version on FreeBSD is **v7.0.0** The changes to the needed to alter FreeBSD's port (Makefile, patches, etc.) of Postgresql v7.0.0 port to install v7.0.2 instead, would appear to be trivial but, having never done this before, I just wanted to check. 1. I changes all references for 7.0.0 to 7.0.2 in the Makefile 2. I changed the MD5 file to reflect the MD5 checksums for 7.0.2 Is there anything else that I need to do or be aware of before making the port? (Frankly, I would be surprised if there is any need to change the v7.0.0 patches to make v7.0.2 work under FreeBSD.) * * * NOTE * * * I have been told to check if there are any additional files that were added to the distribution (any file changes, really, including deleted files) since this info apparently goes into a file(s) called PLIST in the pkg directory. I realize that v7.0.1 was missing some files but that is inconsequential as I am working off the v7.0.0 port files. ALSO NOTE: I don't blame the port maintainer for not having the time to do the update. While the changes appear simple, I'm sure that the requiste testing requires a block of time that he doesn't have at this time. I just can't wait for three weeks or more to install PostgreSQL7, and I would like the latest version. John Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[GENERAL] Re: FreeBSD PostgreSQL7 port and v7.0.2
Hi: Thanks, I check into that. I have assumed, from my own reading of the release history, that: 1) 7.0.1 fixes some minor bugs, and 2) 7.0.2 was released so quickly after 7.0.1 because some documentation was left out as an oversight (which was probably already in of 7.0.0). Which led me to conclude that: 1) there should be no change to the patches that make 7.0.x run with FreeBSD 2) there are no new files from 7.0.0 to 7.0.2 I am cc-ing pgsql-general@postgresql to see if anyone there can confirm the above as fact. John >From: Trevor Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: John Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: FreeBSD PostgreSQL7 port and v7.0.2 >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:07:10 -0400 (EDT) > > > Hi: > >Hi, John. > > > 1. I changes all references of 7.0.0 to 7.0.2 > > 2. I changed the MD5 file to reflect the MD5 checksums for 7.0.2 > > > > Is there anything else that I need to do or be aware of before > > making the port? (Frankly, I would be surprised if there is any > > need to change the v7.0.0 patches to make v7.0.2 work under > > FreeBSD.) > >At http://www.postgresql.org/news.html it says: > >This is essentially a cleanup of v7.0 and the addition of some >missing docs from v7.0.1. >[...] >Added documentation to tarball > >which sounds as though there may be new files which could pertain to >use under FreeBSD. If that's the case, you'll want to update >pkg/PLIST so it lists them. >-- >Trevor Johnson >http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[GENERAL] Re: FreeBSD PostgreSQL7 port and v7.0.2
Hi: > > Thanks, I check into that. I have assumed, from my own reading of > > the release history, that: > > > > 1) 7.0.1 fixes some minor bugs, and > > 2) 7.0.2 was released so quickly after 7.0.1 because some > > documentation was left out as an oversight (which was probably > > already in of 7.0.0). > > > > Which led me to conclude that: > > 1) there should be no change to the patches that make 7.0.x > > run with FreeBSD > > 2) there are no new files from 7.0.0 to 7.0.2 > >the only caveat to 2 ... there are now docs, which we missed >including in v7.0.1 ... are those installed anywhere? FreeBSD currently has a port (in the ports collection) of v7.0.0. There has not been a port of v7.0.1. I am trying to edit the v7.0.0 port so that it will install v7.0.2. My assumptions, listed above, lead me to beleive that this should be fairly easy to do. I am not the port maintainer (he is busy until the end of the month, as described in my previous post), and I have not previously created or customized a port, so I am trying to get more info from people, like yourself, who are more knowledgeable about ports or Postgresql. The crucial question at this point seems to be: has there been any change in the number and names of postgresql files from v7.0.0 to v7.0.2? v7.0.1 is inconsequential since I am editing/customizing a port that works for v7.0.0. (After I have installed 7.0.2, I will send a diff and comments to the port maintainer to help him when he updates the port.) John P.S. My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't seem to be getting through. Would you have any idea why this is so? Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[GENERAL] JSQL for PostgreSQL?
Hi: Is JSQL available for PostgreSQL 7? If so, can someone point me to vendors or documentation, etc.? Thanks John Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[GENERAL] FreeBSD PostgreSQL7 port and v7.0.2
Hi: I am running FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE (i386). I want to install PostgreSQL v7.0.2 but the port maintainer is unable to update it (he writes: "I'm busy until 2000/06/27 because of CCIE certification.") The changes to the port from v7.0.0 to 7.0.2 would appear to be trivial but, having never done this before, I just wanted to check. 1. I changes all references of 7.0.0 to 7.0.2 2. I changed the MD5 file to reflect the MD5 checksums for 7.0.2 Is there anything else that I need to do or be aware of before making the port? (Frankly, I would be surprised if there is any need to change the v7.0.0 patches to make v7.0.2 work under FreeBSD.) NOTE: I don't blame the port maintainer for not having the time to do the update. While the changes appear simple, I'm sure that the requiste testing requires a block of time that he doesn't have at this time. I just can't wait for three weeks or more to install PostgreSQL7, and I would like the latest version. John Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
