Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 19:26 +1000, Neil Dugan wrote: > I thought it would only be needed if you where distributing the source for > Postgresql. > > Does the copyright get distributed with the binary Debian packages? > I haven't been able to find it on my Linux box. The copyright of all Debian packages is found in /usr/share/doc//copyright -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:26:48PM +1000, Neil Dugan wrote: > I thought it would only be needed if you where distributing the source for > Postgresql. > > Does the copyright get distributed with the binary Debian packages? > I haven't been able to find it on my Linux box. Yes it does, in all binary packages. After all, you need to know the terms of the GPL even if you only receive the binaries, given that the licence of the binaries is the same as the source (derived works and such). If you look in /usr/share/doc/postgresql/copyright you find: - Copyright notice for entire distribution - Copyright notice for regex code - Copyright notice for something copied from Tcl > If it is, I would probably have to put a chapter explaining that it only > applies to the libpq.so part of the executable. The licence needs to be provided with anything you provide. If you provide the backend or a frontend or anything. If there is no licence then technically you're not allowed to have it. Only the author doesn't need a licence to distribute. It's a block of text which needs to be somewhere in the package, not exactly an onerous requirement. Although, being BSD licenced you could send it with any licence you like. The point is, you need to say *somewhere* what it is. -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them. pgpcLMV7ZEepL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Thursday 06 October 2005 08:34, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:14:03PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:49:06PM +1000, Neil Dugan wrote: > > > If I was to develop a 'C' project that only used the libpg.so library > > > and the rest was my own stuff would I need to preserve the copyright to > > > somehow? > > > > Yes, because libpg.so is licensed under the BSD license. Note that > > you can do this in a COPYRIGHT file. It just has to be "in all > > copies", whatever that means. > > AFAIK, this would only apply if he was actually distributing libpq.so, > which would be a bad thing for technical reasons anyway. > I thought it would only be needed if you where distributing the source for Postgresql. Does the copyright get distributed with the binary Debian packages? I haven't been able to find it on my Linux box. If it is, I would probably have to put a chapter explaining that it only applies to the libpq.so part of the executable. > > People are actually slightly oversimplifying, because when you > > distribute you also have to distribute two paragraphs. > > > > The license is available, among other places, from this URL: > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence > > > > It has _got_ to be the easiest piece of legalese you'll ever > > Not easy enough to avoid confusion though. :) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 05:34:25PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Yes, because libpg.so is licensed under the BSD license. Note that > > you can do this in a COPYRIGHT file. It just has to be "in all > > copies", whatever that means. > > AFAIK, this would only apply if he was actually distributing libpq.so, > which would be a bad thing for technical reasons anyway. Well, yes, except I suppose I sort of thought it was going to be linked statically or something -- how do you rely on your users having the library installed? But now that I think about it, I suppose this is really a question prompted by TheirDB's decision to understand "derivative program" in a mighty extended way. I seem to be echoing Emily a lot these days. "Never mind." A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. --George Orwell ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:14:03PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:49:06PM +1000, Neil Dugan wrote: > > > > If I was to develop a 'C' project that only used the libpg.so library and > > the > > rest was my own stuff would I need to preserve the copyright to somehow? > > Yes, because libpg.so is licensed under the BSD license. Note that > you can do this in a COPYRIGHT file. It just has to be "in all > copies", whatever that means. AFAIK, this would only apply if he was actually distributing libpq.so, which would be a bad thing for technical reasons anyway. > People are actually slightly oversimplifying, because when you > distribute you also have to distribute two paragraphs. > > The license is available, among other places, from this URL: > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence > > It has _got_ to be the easiest piece of legalese you'll ever Not easy enough to avoid confusion though. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:49:06PM +1000, Neil Dugan wrote: > > If I was to develop a 'C' project that only used the libpg.so library and the > rest was my own stuff would I need to preserve the copyright to somehow? Yes, because libpg.so is licensed under the BSD license. Note that you can do this in a COPYRIGHT file. It just has to be "in all copies", whatever that means. People are actually slightly oversimplifying, because when you distribute you also have to distribute two paragraphs. The license is available, among other places, from this URL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence It has _got_ to be the easiest piece of legalese you'll ever encounter. Read it, and do what it says. There's no long preamble about rights; there's no provision that you've accepted it just by having installed the software that was necessary to read the EULA; there's no provision that breaking the Magic Plastic Wrap has donated your 1st born to the fires below; there's no provision that, even though you just paid a million dollars, you can't get your money back if it doesn't work. But it does say that, if you use the software, you have to warn your users somehow that some of the code is written by someone else, and that it's not UC's fault if it doesn't work (so you can't sue them). A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] The plural of anecdote is not data. --Roger Brinner ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
Neil Dugan wrote: >If I was to develop a 'C' project that only used the libpg.so library and the >rest was my own stuff would I need to preserve the copyright to somehow? >I wouldn't be distributing any source at all just my executable and the >library. license preservation is relevant if you choose to modify the code and distribute it. if you don't include any PostgreSQL source code in your source code, then your code doesn't need to carry any special acknowledgement, as linking to BSD licensed libraries is a freebie. richard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 06:41, Aaron Glenn wrote: > On 10/4/05, Welty, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aaron Glenn wrote: > > >Completely incorrect. You can do whatever you like with PostgreSQL; > > >you just can't sue anyone when things go south. > > > > _and_ you need to preserve the copyright notices. > > excellent point. > If I was to develop a 'C' project that only used the libpg.so library and the rest was my own stuff would I need to preserve the copyright to somehow? I wouldn't be distributing any source at all just my executable and the library. Regards Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On 10/4/05, Welty, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Glenn wrote: > >Completely incorrect. You can do whatever you like with PostgreSQL; > >you just can't sue anyone when things go south. > > _and_ you need to preserve the copyright notices. excellent point. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
Richmond Dyes wrote: From my understanding of the license for Postgresql, there is no licensing fees as long as you are not selling it yourself for a profit. This is incorrect. Please see the other messages on this thread. The product you are thinking of is MySQL. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
Aaron Glenn wrote: >On 10/4/05, Richmond Dyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From my understanding of the license for Postgresql, there is no >> licensing fees as long as you are not selling it yourself for a profit. >Completely incorrect. You can do whatever you like with PostgreSQL; >you just can't sue anyone when things go south. _and_ you need to preserve the copyright notices. i think that is pretty much it -- you can't sue, you need to preserve the copyrights, and other than that, have at it. richard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
On 10/4/05, Richmond Dyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From my understanding of the license for Postgresql, there is no > licensing fees as long as you are not selling it yourself for a profit. Completely incorrect. You can do whatever you like with PostgreSQL; you just can't sue anyone when things go south. aaron.glenn ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] License question[VASCL:A1077160A86]
From my understanding of the license for Postgresql, there is no licensing fees as long as you are not selling it yourself for a profit. There are also free platforms to build your application on. I am myself exploring the use of Centos with php, postgresql, apache with ssl running as a secure stable platform for my customer. I think you can do this all for free. meaning just charging for the time you use to develop and support the application. It is not a fat client solution and you will have to learn the environment, but from my exploring, this seems to be a very viable option. Again, I have to research things such as report writing and the like. Hope we get other opinions on this. I am at this juncture myself. Aaron Smith wrote: I did a quick search on the mailing list and didn’t really find my answer, so I am posting it to this list… I’d like to apologize for my lack in understanding all this license stuff. I am not an open source developer, I am a commercial developer, so this is the first time I have even looked to use open source software at all. We are a small company that develops specialized applications. We use a development language that has its own shared file database (like access). This is less than ideal in a lot of cases. We don’t really charge for our software, we charge for the time we take to make the software. Essentially, we have no product, we have a service. However, we are a commercial for-profit entity. We have found our built in database to be problematic and prone to index corruption. Plus the fact when people ask us what we use, we get funny looks, and sometimes told we can’t install that on their server because they have never heard of it before. We started to look at alternatives. One of those was the MSDE from Microsoft. I started a conversion of a large customer only to find out that we hit the 2 gig limit before it even got installed (converted their current data). We started to look at prices of the full version of SQL Server and the pricing is going to put it out of reach for some of our customers. The larger ones will have no problem paying for it, but most of our customers are small businesses that just can’t afford it. I realize it’s a small price to pay, but you also have to realize that with our development language, we have to charge our end users a per user runtime fee (that gets paid to the company that makes our development language) and a per user fee to connect to any database other than the default (again, to the company that made our development language). By the time we are done, a 25 user system has a per user cost of over $5,000 for the database and the runtime fees. Then when you tack on our fees for software modifications, this just put it out of reach for the smaller customers. Also keep in mind; we are in process of dumping our current language for VB.Net, simply because of these stupid fees that our customers have to pay to the company that wrote our development environment. We are looking for alternatives that are reliable, fairly fast, and easy to maintain. We immediately thought of MySQL, but the commercial licenses have now gone to an annual subscription structure. The basic version is fairly cheap, and very reasonable. However, the data connector that we have to pay for to get MySQL access will cost our end users $3500 for a 25 user system. On the other hand, we can use an ODBC connector for $1,000, which puts it back into the somewhat affordable range. Once it’s moved to VB.Net, all of these fees will be eliminated, but that is pretty far off. This brings me here. I have heard of PostGreSQL, so it’s not new to me. But all this licensing is. And maybe you can help get some clarification for the MySQL licensing too. We will not be selling the database software. We may install it for them, though. In fact, most of the time, we will be the ones to install it, and we charge for that time. Our customers are very aware that we did not write it, nor are we selling it. Even if they are to purchase SQL Server, they are the ones to purchase it directly, not us. We purchase the connectivity kits that we use to connect to the database, and then pass that cost on to the customer. It is purchased in their name with their information. We do not charge extra or tack on any fees. We do it this way so that no screw ups are made… The connectivity kit is the one that connects to the database; we connect to the connectivity kit through our software. Knowing all this, what do we need to purchase, what can we do and what can’t we do? It’s hard getting a straight answer from anyone that is why I am here. If we can’t do it, we won’t. If we can save our customers some money while getting them really good options and software, we would like to do that. But on the same token, we don’t to do anything unfair or illegal. Thank you for your time. Aaron ---(e
