Thread

1. Licence

   Jonathan Tripathy <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk> — 2010-03-10T14:49:12Z

   Hi Everyone,
   
   Can someone please confirm that the PostgreSQL licence allow commercial distribution (with a fee charged)?
   
   I am developing a proprietary (i.e. non-free) solution in Java, and wish to use PostgreSQL as the backend database. We wish to ship the server with our software, as well as use the JDBC driver included in our java solution.
   
   I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
   
   Is it just a matter of placing the PostgreSQL licence text in the "About" box of the solution, as well as in the paper/PDF manual?
   
   Thanks
   
   Jonny
   

2. Re: Licence

   Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> — 2010-03-10T15:09:54Z

   On 10 March 2010 14:49, Jonathan Tripathy <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk> wrote:
   
   >  Hi Everyone,
   >
   > Can someone please confirm that the PostgreSQL licence allow commercial
   > distribution (with a fee charged)?
   >
   > I am developing a proprietary (i.e. non-free) solution in Java, and wish to
   > use PostgreSQL as the backend database. We wish to ship the server with our
   > software, as well as use the JDBC driver included in our java solution.
   >
   > I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the
   > line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it
   > means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers"
   > rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
   >
   > Is it just a matter of placing the PostgreSQL licence text in the "About"
   > box of the solution, as well as in the paper/PDF manual?
   >
   > Thanks
   >
   > Jonny
   >
   
   You may do with PostgreSQL what you wish. Change it, sell it, do anything,
   and there are no charges or fees to pay under any condition.  Here's the key
   paragraph:
   
   "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
   documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement
   is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
   paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies."
   
   Regards
   
   Thom
   

3. Re: Licence

   PT <wmoran@potentialtech.com> — 2010-03-10T15:20:27Z

   In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
   > 
   > I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
   
   The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing so.
   
   -- 
   Bill Moran
   http://www.potentialtech.com
   http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
   
   

4. Re: Licence

   Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com> — 2010-03-10T17:34:53Z

   Bill Moran wrote:
   > In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
   >   
   >> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
   >>     
   >
   > The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing so.
   >
   >   
   We all know that, but the wording certainly is ambiguous and could be 
   interpreted either way. Reminds me of Ed Asner in the old "Remenber, you 
   can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor." nuke-plant retiree 
   sketch on "Saturday Night Live." (When he left, they argued about the 
   interpretation and eventually decided to drain the reactor. Final line 
   to waitress on the beach: "Remember, you can't stare too long at a 
   radiation cloud...")
   
   It seems to me that ", without fee, and without a written agreement" 
   could be stripped out entirely.
   
   But I am not a lawyer. And while there is no problem asking the question 
   here, if there is any actual money/liability on the line then relying on 
   legal advice from geeks is about as sensible as asking your attorney for 
   a custom kernel module. That goes for the whole stack of components in 
   your system, not just PostgreSQL which is about the least likely to 
   cause licensing problems.
   
   Cheers,
   Steve
   
   
   

5. Re: Licence

   Lew <noone@lwsc.ehost-services.com> — 2010-03-21T20:11:56Z

   Steve Crawford wrote:
   > Bill Moran wrote:
   >> In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" <jonnyt@abpni.co.uk>:
   >>  
   >>> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however 
   >>> the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I 
   >>> think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL 
   >>> developers" rather than "if you distribute, you must not charge a fee"
   >>>     
   >>
   >> The "without fee" part means that you don't owe anyone a fee for doing 
   >> so.
   >>
   >>   
   > We all know that, but the wording certainly is ambiguous and could be 
   > interpreted either way. Reminds me of Ed Asner in the old "Remenber, you 
   > can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor." nuke-plant retiree 
   > sketch on "Saturday Night Live." (When he left, they argued about the 
   > interpretation and eventually decided to drain the reactor. Final line 
   > to waitress on the beach: "Remember, you can't stare too long at a 
   > radiation cloud...")
   > 
   > It seems to me that ", without fee, and without a written agreement" 
   > could be stripped out entirely.
   > 
   > But I am not a lawyer. And while there is no problem asking the question 
   > here, if there is any actual money/liability on the line then relying on 
   > legal advice from geeks is about as sensible as asking your attorney for 
   > a custom kernel module. That goes for the whole stack of components in 
   > your system, not just PostgreSQL which is about the least likely to 
   > cause licensing problems.
   
   In at least some jurisdictions, if one party to a contract writes the language 
   without input or emendation from the other party, that allows the other party 
   to impose any reasonable interpretation on the wording.  IOW, ambiguity is 
   resolved in favor of the party who had no choice in the wording.
   
   That would mean the licensee gets to determine what "without fee" means, not 
   the licensor.
   
   -- 
   Lew
   
   

6. Re: Licence

   Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch> — 2010-03-22T07:22:31Z

   On Sunday 21 March 2010 21.11:56 Lew wrote:
   
   > In at least some jurisdictions, if one party to a contract writes the
   > language without input or emendation from the other party, that allows
   > the other party to impose any reasonable interpretation on the wording. 
   > IOW, ambiguity is resolved in favor of the party who had no choice in
   > the wording.
   > 
   > That would mean the licensee gets to determine what "without fee" means,
   > not the licensor.
   
   A (copyright) license and a contract are two entirely different things.
   
   By using PostgreSQL you do not enter a contract with the authors (or any 
   other copyright holder) but you make use of a license that grants you 
   certain permissions.  The essential difference to a contract is that if the 
   license terms are not to your liking, you can always quit using it.  With a 
   contract (especially those where one party alone wrote it - basically most 
   contracts a private person will ever have with a company such as a bank, 
   telco, insurance company, ....) you are usually bound and can't quit without 
   compensation, which is why the law protects the "weaker" party that much.
   
   cheers
   -- vbi
   
   
   -- 
     Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero