Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:13:45PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jim Wise wrote: I'd like to point out a couple things that are _not_ wrong with the current license: 1.) With the current license, contributors to the code are not opened to legal liability for the code they contribute. The BSD license very clearly disclaims all warranty on the part of not only UCB but also all contributors Actually, this is the only thing that I do feel the current license is missing ... unless I'm reading something wrong, it all focuses on disclaming "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"s liability ... that one is very specific ... Since no-one else has mentioned this yet, I will: the Postgres license, i.e., the file COPYRIGHT at the top level of the distribution, isn't exactly identical to what's commonly known as "the BSD license". The Postgres copyright, the BSD 4.4 copyright (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html), and the FreeBSD copyright (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html), are all differently worded in parts, although clearly the same in intent. The latter is almost identical to the BSD license template at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html . All of them except ours say something like "REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS" when they're disclaiming warranties; we just have the University of California doing so. The simplest way to change our license if we want to make sure that it explicitly disclaims warranties on behalf of all contributors seems to be to add to the existing California paragraphs a dead standard BSD license with our contributors referred to collectively, which is what Marc has proposed. There may be people who for one reason or another (usually US law, as far as I can see) would like to see more changes, but I can't see what's objectionable about this one. Richard
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Richard Poole wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:13:45PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Jim Wise wrote: I'd like to point out a couple things that are _not_ wrong with the current license: 1.) With the current license, contributors to the code are not opened to legal liability for the code they contribute. The BSD license very clearly disclaims all warranty on the part of not only UCB but also all contributors Actually, this is the only thing that I do feel the current license is missing ... unless I'm reading something wrong, it all focuses on disclaming "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA"s liability ... that one is very specific ... Since no-one else has mentioned this yet, I will: the Postgres license, i.e., the file COPYRIGHT at the top level of the distribution, isn't exactly identical to what's commonly known as "the BSD license". Ya, I just clued into that ... throughout all the discussions, I never once thought to do a 'cat /usr/src/COPYRIGHT' on my machine :( The Postgres copyright, the BSD 4.4 copyright (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html), and the FreeBSD copyright (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html), are all differently worded in parts, although clearly the same in intent. The latter is almost identical to the BSD license template at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html . All of them Damn, why didn't anyone ever actually look at this stuff before? And ya, I'm just as guilty as the rest ... The simplest way to change our license if we want to make sure that it explicitly disclaims warranties on behalf of all contributors seems to be to add to the existing California paragraphs a dead standard BSD license with our contributors referred to collectively, which is what Marc has proposed. Quite frankly, I like the one that OpenSource.Org provides as standard for BSD License ... it encompasses everything as one Para instead of repeating things ... With wu-ftpd, each source file has this included, as well as a line consisting of "Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER" for each developer that did work in that file ... My personal opinion is to replace the BSD License of 1996 with the BSD License of today (and keep up with changes to it), as it has been adopt'd by other Open Source Projects ... as is provided on http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html Something nice, simple and industry standard: ==[ README file ]=== PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres95) This directory contains the ___ release of PostgreSQL, as well as various post-release patches in the patches directory. See INSTALL for the installation notes and HISTORY for the changes. We also have a WWW home page located at: http://www.postgreSQL.org =[ COPYRIGHT file ]=== Copyright (c) 1994-1996, Regents of the University of California Copyright (c) 1996-2000, various contributors (as identified in HISTORY) (collectively "Contributors") All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Neither name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY 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 REGENTS 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. ==
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable??
Philip Warner wrote: Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be, but you want people to go there of their own free will? Right. Someone who doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open for any non-commercial use should choose it. IMHO the GPL includes "this is the one and only truth and must propagate up into everything started on something that once went under this license". Who am I to restrict my code in that way? Can I see the future? 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??
Thus spake Jan Wieck
Right. Someone who doesn't want to make his code "FREE" in
the entire meaning of this word but want to make it open for
any non-commercial use should choose it. IMHO the GPL
While I am a proponent of keeping the BSD style license, there is nothing
in the GPL about using code for commercial use one way or the other.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@{druid|vex}.net | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Personally, from all the 'legal' issues that FreeBSD has gone through over
the years, especially recently with the BSDi/FreeBSD merger and the whole
cryptology merger, I would think they would have been the first to
adopt/change their BSD license to something else, and I've never even seen
discussions on it ...
The only thing that comes close are the periodic discussions (ignored by
FBSD developers) about the removal of the 'offensive' mascot. ;-)
Top Ten Gratuitous Discussions:
1. FreeBSD v. Linux
2. GPL v. BSD licence
3. Removal of 'Chuckie' (Berkeley Daemon) from BSD
in favour of something less 'Satanic' or 'Demonic'
4. (Official) renaming of 'Chuckie' so as not offend McKusick
over the popular (mis)perception that the Berkeley Daemon
is (nick)named 'Chuckie'
5. MySQL v. Postgres
6. RedHat v. Debian v. SuSe
7. Why was Slackware not involved in the above discussion
8. Perl v. Python
9. Coke v. Pepsi
lastly:
10. Altering the PG licence...I agree with *my perception* of Scrappy's
position: If FBSD get nervous and changes their licence, Pg should
follow suit. Otherwise it seems counterproductive.
Anyway, thanks for the great code. I promise not to abuse it.
I promise not to sue anyone if I am too damn stupid to use it properly.
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
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
