Serguei Mokhov wrote:
>
> and why the PostgreSQL project originally is being
> released under the BSD-like license? Just curious...
Berkeley usually releases their free projects under BSD licence ;)
There have been some discussion about changing it, but it has never got
enough support.
--
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> > > contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> > > lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
> >
>
> I was incorrect in something I said to
> Regarding the licencing of the code, I always release my code under GPL,
> which is the licence I prefer, but my code in the backend is obviously
> released under the original postgres licence. Since the module is loaded
> dynamically and not linked into the backend I don't see a problem here.
>
> So, rather than going over everone's IANAL opinons about mixing
> licenses, let's just let Massimo know that it'd just be a lot
> easier to PostgreSQL/BSD license the whole thing, if he doesn't
> mind too much.
Yes, it would be better.
Vadim
---(end of broadcast)--
Uh, guys? The last thing I can find that Massimo says about the license
is this, from Sunday:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 11:15:54PM +0200, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
>
> Regarding the licencing of the code, I always release my code under GPL,
> which is the licence I prefer, but my code in the backen
Bruce Momjian wrote:
...
>Yes, that is probably it. The GPL doesn't give anything to users, it
>takes some control away from users and gives it to the author of the
>code.
Correction - it takes away from the *distributor* of binaries the right to
give users fewer rights than he has. If he
> Because the code we got from Berkeley was BSD licensed, we
> can't change it, and because many of us like the BSD license
> better because we don't want to require them to release the
> source code, we just want them to use PostgreSQL. And we
> think they will release the source code eventually
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> > > > contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> > > > lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main b
> > Besides, anyone who actually wanted to use the userlock
> > code would need only to write their own wrapper functions
> > to get around the GPL license.
>
> This is a part of copyright law that eludes me - can i write
> a replacement function for something so simple that it can
> essentially
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:42 AM
> > I really think that mixing licences inside one program is bad, if not
> > for
> > any other reason then for confusing people and making them have
> > discussions
> > like this.
>
>
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:42 AM
> > I really think that mixing licences inside one program is bad, if not
> > for
> > any other reason then for confusing people and making them have
> > discussions
> > like this.
>
>
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> > > contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> > > lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
> >
>
> > Yes, the weird part is that the BSD license is so lax (don't sue us)
> > that it is the addition of the GPL that changes the affect of the
> > license. If you added a BSD license to a GPL'ed piece of code, the
> > effect would be near zero.
>
> Sorry for asking this off-topic question, but I
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > This is a part of copyright law that eludes me - can i write a
> > replacement
> > function for something so simple that it can essentially be done in one
> > way only (like incrementing a value by one) ?
>
> Sure, if you don't cut and paste the code line by line,
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> > contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> > lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
>
I was incorrect in something I said to Vadim. I said s
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
As it seems a generally useful feature, it could at least be LGPL'd
> I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
> The only thing this licensing setup can accomplish is to discourage
> people from usin
I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
The only thing this licensing setup can accomplish is to discourage
people from using the user
> > Well, yes, it calls user_lock(), but the communication is not
> > OS-linked, it is linked over a network socket, so I don't think
> > the GPL spreads over a socket. Just as telnet'ing somewhere an
> > typing 'bash' doesn't make your telnet GPL'ed, so I think the
> > client code is safe. To the
> > Application would explicitly call user_lock() functions in
> > queries, so issue is still not clear for me. And once again -
>
> Well, yes, it calls user_lock(), but the communication is not
> OS-linked, it is linked over a network socket, so I don't think
> the GPL spreads over a socket. Jus
> > No, you were clear.
>
> So I missed your "near-zero cost" sentence.
OK.
> > My assumption is that once you link that code into
> > the backend, the entire backend is GPL'ed and any other
> > application code you link into it is also (stored procedures,
> > triggers, etc.) I don't think your
> waiting for other things) and tosses up new copies if it goes a while
> > without waiting at all (showing increased load).
> >
> > --
> > Rod Taylor
> >
> > This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
> >
> > - Original Message -
>
> > > I assume any code that uses contrib/userlock has to be GPL'ed,
> > > meaning it can be used for commercial purposes but can't be sold
> > > as binary-only, and actually can't be sold for much because you
> > > have to make the code available for near-zero cost.
> >
> > I'm talking not about
> > > For example, one could use user-locks for processing incoming
> > > orders by multiple operators:
> > > select * from orders where user_lock(orders.oid) = 1 LIMIT 1
> > > - so each operator would lock one order for processing and
> > > operators wouldn't block each other. So, could such
> >
> > For example, one could use user-locks for processing incoming
> > orders by multiple operators:
> > select * from orders where user_lock(orders.oid) = 1 LIMIT 1
> > - so each operator would lock one order for processing and
> > operators wouldn't block each other. So, could such
> > applicatio
> > > If the licence becomes a problem I can easily change it,
> > > but I prefer the GPL if possible.
> >
> > We just wanted to make sure the backend changes were not
> > under the GPL.
>
> No, Bruce - backend part of code is useless without interface
> functions and I wonder doesn't GPL-ed int
> > If the licence becomes a problem I can easily change it,
> > but I prefer the GPL if possible.
>
> We just wanted to make sure the backend changes were not
> under the GPL.
No, Bruce - backend part of code is useless without interface
functions and I wonder doesn't GPL-ed interface implement
> Regarding the licencing of the code, I always release my code
> under GPL, which is the licence I prefer, but my code in the
> backend is obviously released under the original postgres
> licence. Since the module is loaded dynamically and not linked
> into the backend I don't see a problem here.
ssage represents the official view of the voices in my head
- Original Message -
From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:48 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] User locks code
> 1. Just noted this in contrib/userlock
; --
> Rod Taylor
>
> This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:48 PM
> Subject: [HAC
1. Just noted this in contrib/userlock/README.user_locks:
> User locks, by Massimo Dal Zotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Copyright (C) 1999, Massimo Dal Zotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
> either version 2, or (at your option) any later ver
31 matches
Mail list logo
