Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Mike Mascari wrote: > Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is > BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the > major developers: > > A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large > sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who > have been working on this *for years* > My understanding is that BSD allows someone to take the code commercial without consulting the original developers at all. With GPL, a company would have to negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holders in order to use the code for a closed source commercial product. This would ensure that the copyright holders receive some compensation. (Multiple licensing is a common strategy; e.g., ReiserFS if offered under GPL and commercial licensing. It is also possible to let users choose one of several licenses, so you can release your code under BSD and GPL and let users decide which they prefer, although this could create additional problems with integrating contributed code.) With BSD you are basically saying that anyone can use the code anyway they want, even if they take it and sell it as part of a commercial closed source product. I'm also happy if major postgres developers get sums of cash thrown their way, but why does BSD make that more likely? Also, I will point out that the GPL allows anyone to make closed source modifications to code as long as they do not redistribute the modifications. Its perfectly fine to modify the code and use the modified version within an organization. Placing modifications under the GPL only applies when these modifications are distributed to others. I believe some of the GPL 'poison' comments incorrectly implied that the GPL restricts organizations from making closed source modifications for internal use. T. -- Timothy H. Keitt National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-892-2519, FAX: 805-892-2510 http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~keitt/
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > > > > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > > > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > > > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > > > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > > > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send > > > > > > the source along. > > > > > > > > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres > > > > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source? > > > > > > > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can > > > > sell it, and develop it by demand. > > > > > > > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would > > > be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm > > > responsible to patch future versions until I release the > > > sources. Is that OK? > > > > You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you > > gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it. > > Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for? By doing everything he wants (and perfect) so he doesn't have a need for it? Basically, GPL is intended to protect the end user and guaranteeing him the source if he wants it - and that he can do what he wants to with it, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. > > > > > > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send > > > > > the source along. > > > > > > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres > > > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source? > > > > > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can > > > sell it, and develop it by demand. > > > > > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would > > be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm > > responsible to patch future versions until I release the > > sources. Is that OK? > > You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you > gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it. Wordy, but how can I prevent him to ask for? 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 morepalatable?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. > > > > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send > > > > the source along. > > > > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres > > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source? > > > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can > > sell it, and develop it by demand. > > > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying > > > > Yes. > > Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would > be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm > responsible to patch future versions until I release the > sources. Is that OK? You don't have to give the customer the source, as long as you gurantee that he gets it (for cost of distribution) if he wants it. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Wieck) writes: > > > Trond Eivind=?iso-8859-1?q?_Glomsr=F8d?= wrote: > > > Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > > > > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > > > > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > > > > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. > > > > > > GPL doesn't prohibit commercial spawns - it just requires you to send > > > the source along. > > > > So if someone offers $$$ for implementation of Postgres > > feature XYZ I don't have to make that code open source? > > You don't have to tell the world they can have it for free - you can > sell it, and develop it by demand. > > > Only need to ship the code to the one paying > > Yes. Now I don't want to ship the source code. My customer would be happy with a patched 8.2.3 binary as long as I'm responsible to patch future versions until I release the sources. Is that OK? 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 morepalatable?
Ron, probably the best example to reassure you here is Illustra/Informix, which is based on the old Berkeley Postgres code. A group of people at Berkeley "forked" the Postgres code into the closed Illustra system, but it survived as Postgres95, then later PostgreSQL when Marc and Bruce got started. As a number of people have said, if someone (like Great Bridge or anyone else) ever took the then-current PostgreSQL code proprietary, it would still remain as an open source project - and believe me, there are plenty of people who would rather work on it as an open source project than a proprietary death-spiral. We think the proprietary software development model for large scale projects (operating systems, databases, wide-ranging applications) is stupid and dead. We don't think open source is going away - in fact, we think it's the way most software is going to be developed in the future. There will certainly be companies that try and fork off open source projects and make a quick buck; they will fail. As I understand your concern, you don't want to make a learning investment in something you think is open source, only to have it go closed? I think I can safely say that PostgreSQL as an open source project will never go away - the momentum is too strong, the product is too good, the developers are too committed, for that to happen. Best, Ned Ron Peterson wrote: > I'm not trying to rankle the developers who have benefited me so much by > promoting the GPL. I'm just trying to protect myself as a consumer from > being left in the cold when the product I've spent so much time learning > and implementing suddenly goes proprietary. > > Sorry to be cynical, but as a consumer, I can't help seeing BSD licenses > as good old bait and switch. And this discussion doesn't reassure me > otherwise. > > Sure, the code can fork. SunOS, AIX, HPUX are good examples. Examples > of the kind of code forking and corporatism I thought, I hoped, the > world was moving away from. > > > Ron Peterson > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Mike Mascari wrote: > > Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is > BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the > major developers: > > A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large > sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who > have been working on this *for years* > > B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc" > out-there offers to host development on his machine and the > process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's > existence. > > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes > some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication, > distributive, and parallel query, good for them. Is perhaps GPL more restrictive for *developers*? And BSD more restrictive for *consumers*? As a consumer I prefer the GPL. But Mike's point is well taken. I agree that the GPL is rather idealistic. It makes it very difficult, almost impossible, for someone to make money doing software development. Is there a middle ground? Somewhere where perhaps I can be assured that *someday* in the not-so-distant future I, as a consumer, will have access to source code? Is there any such thing as a license with built-in time limits? Reasonably short time limits, as opposed to those provided by the U.S. patent office? Or is there a way to write an open-source license that allows developers to make money? I know, I know, there are too many licenses already. But if talented hard working people can't make a living, there's a problem. This will probably sound very stupid, but would it be possible to write a license that said something to the effect of "if you are a big corporate commercial interest worth more than $X, you must donate $Y to postgresql.org."? I'm not trying to rankle the developers who have benefited me so much by promoting the GPL. I'm just trying to protect myself as a consumer from being left in the cold when the product I've spent so much time learning and implementing suddenly goes proprietary. Sorry to be cynical, but as a consumer, I can't help seeing BSD licenses as good old bait and switch. And this discussion doesn't reassure me otherwise. Sure, the code can fork. SunOS, AIX, HPUX are good examples. Examples of the kind of code forking and corporatism I thought, I hoped, the world was moving away from. Ron Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote: > At 00:24 5/07/00 -0400, Mike Mascari 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? > > > >Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is BSD > >*with restrictions* > > I don't. The above was a question to Jan. > > I have stated in the past that I would prefer PG to be GPL, but that is > based on my perception of PG as a 'strategic resource' for my company. The > GPL Vs. BSD discussion is a religious war that will only be resolved in > time. I do, honestly, hope Jan is right about the convergence of open > source and industry. Philip ... I abhor GPL myself, which is why PostgreSQL will never fall under it ... I think it is just this side of 'MicroSloth evil' in that it creates way more restrictions on code that are necessary. Its been around so long that ppl have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that "this is the only open source license" ... You cannot close source open source ... unless ppl don't care. If someone were to come along and try, someone else comes along and forks the code off at the point *just before* the license changed and continues along their own thread. Quite frankly, that person forking it off would be me, since PostgreSQL was never intended to be closed source ... ... it doesn't matter if the code is under BSD or GPL, that fork can (and will) happen ... with GPL, its near impossible to do ... with BSD, its easier, but it buys little for the commercial enterprise doing so ... I was going to say that what BSD buys someone over GPL is the ability to create modules taht are binary only, but even GPL allows for that ... *shrug* > >A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large > >sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who > >have been working on this *for years* > > I totally agree. This can happen under GPL. If I were a company wanting to > develop PG, the source would be less of an issue than access to the core > developers who are the real resource. As Jan has said elsewhere, keeping > source secret is a waste of effort. Okay, so BSD vs GPL matters not here ... > >B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc" > >out-there offers to host development on his machine and the > >process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's > >existence. > > No problem here but wasted effort. And BSD vs GPL matters not here ... > In summary of my position: > > 1. I am happy to continue with vanilla BSD + extra warranty & liability > disclaimers. This is my feeling too ... I won't agree to changing the license over to a "under juristiction of ...", nor will I agreee with the "slam this in front of ppls faces and force them to read it ...". 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 ... Putting the license up as a README on the ftp site, and maybe including it as part of the download page ... no probs, not obnoxious ... hell, how many ppl even read the license on sites that require a 'I agree'?
[Fwd: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?]
Mike Mascari wrote: > Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is > BSD *with restrictions*. If someone comes along and sweeps up the > major developers: > > A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large > sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who > have been working on this *for years* > My understanding is that BSD allows someone to take the code commercial without consulting the original developers at all. With GPL, a company would have to negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holders in order to use the code for a closed source commercial product. This would ensure that the copyright holders receive some compensation. (Multiple licensing is a common strategy; e.g., ReiserFS if offered under GPL and commercial licensing. It is also possible to let users choose one of several licenses, so you can release your code under BSD and GPL and let users decide which they prefer, although this could create additional problems with integrating contributed code.) With BSD you are basically saying that anyone can use the code anyway they want, even if they take it and sell it as part of a commercial closed source product. I'm also happy if major postgres developers get sums of cash thrown their way, but why does BSD make that more likely? Also, I will point out that the GPL allows anyone to make closed source modifications to code as long as they do not redistribute the modifications. Its perfectly fine to modify the code and use the modified version within an organization. Placing modifications under the GPL only applies when these modifications are distributed to others. I believe some of the GPL 'poison' comments incorrectly implied that the GPL restricts organizations from making closed source modifications for internal use. T. -- Timothy H. Keitt National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-892-2519, FAX: 805-892-2510 http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~keitt/
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Mike Mascari wrote: > This is not something new. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, etc. all have (at > one time or another) considerable BSD roots. And yet FreeBSD > still exists... All GPL does is 'poison' the pot by prohibiting > commercial spawns which may leverage the code. If someone makes > some money selling CommercialGres by integrating replication, > distributive, and parallel query, good for them. Let them! It's good for the customer too, because he mustn't wait until we lazy dogs implement all that. If they are smart, they will contribute it to the open source tree sometimes after having their ROI. Otherwise they run the risk of getting stuck someday when their changes don't apply any more to our tree but they are still responsible for it's functionality. 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 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 |/
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?
