Thread
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Joe Brenner <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> — 2000-07-27T20:44:52Z
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> wrote: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Just curious; I probably won't look myself since I don't want to run the > > risk of compromising our code and licensing. Or is that not an issue > > with the Inprise license? > > I had a bit of a look. There's no obvious reason, just maybe postgres > has a few more comments and a bit more code inside the action blocks. No > obvious problem here. > > It would be a pity if we can't look and learn from Interbase in this > instance, because this is one area where there is at least a possibility > of borrowing something useful. Well, the license is just the Mozilla Public License with the names changed. I've just read through it several times, and I think the main trouble with it is you probably really do need to have a lawyer look at it... but I think you could go as far as to include some of the Inprise source files into postgresql: http://www.inprise.com/IPL.html 3.7. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code. The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things... If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to keep track of where the source came from, label it with their license, list any modifications you've made, always provide the source with any executables, etc. There's also a bunch of stuff about how this license doesn't release you from any third party intellectual property claims (duh! Legal docs always seem to state the obvious at great length). I might wonder what would happen if Borland owned a software patent on some algorithm that's included in this code... But no, I *think* that's a non-issue: The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims:
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2000-07-28T15:33:15Z
> http://www.inprise.com/IPL.html > > 3.7. Larger Works. > > You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with > other code not governed by the terms of this License and > distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a > case, You must make sure the requirements of this License > are fulfilled for the Covered Code. > > The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things... > If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to > keep track of where the source came from, label it with > their license, list any modifications you've made, always > provide the source with any executables, etc. But the BSD license doesn't require source for distributed binaries. Sounds like a GPL-style restriction. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Kaare Rasmussen <kar@webline.dk> — 2000-07-29T10:13:33Z
> > The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things... > > If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to > > keep track of where the source came from, label it with > > their license, list any modifications you've made, always > > provide the source with any executables, etc. > > But the BSD license doesn't require source for distributed binaries. > Sounds like a GPL-style restriction. What is more important to my mind is if the license permits a developer to look at the code and get inspired, or if the developer's mind will be "tainted" just by looking. I hope someone can tell; I always wake up later with my head on the keyboard when I try to read license stuff... -- Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582 Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2582 Howitzvej 75 ben 14.00-18.00 Email: kar@webline.dk 2000 Frederiksberg Lrdag 11.00-17.00 Web: www.suse.dk
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-07-29T15:43:13Z
Kaare Rasmussen <kar@webline.dk> writes: > What is more important to my mind is if the license permits a > developer to look at the code and get inspired, or if the developer's > mind will be "tainted" just by looking. It is not possible to be "tainted" by looking. There are only two kinds of intellectual property rights (at least in the USA) and neither one creates that risk: 1. Copyright means you can't take the code verbatim, just like you can't plagiarize a novel. You can use the same ideas (plot, characters, etc) but you have to express 'em in your own words. Structure the code differently, use different names, write your own comments, etc, and you're clear even if you lifted the algorithm lock stock & barrel. 2. Patent means you can't use the algorithm. However, looking doesn't create extra risk here, because you can't use a patented algorithm (without paying) no matter how you learned of it --- not even if you invented it independently. As far as I've heard, Inprise isn't claiming any patent rights in connection with the Interbase code anyway, but it might be a good idea for someone to check before we all start reading their code... regards, tom lane
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> — 2000-07-30T23:43:31Z
Kaare Rasmussen wrote: > > > > The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things... > > > If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to > > > keep track of where the source came from, label it with > > > their license, list any modifications you've made, always > > > provide the source with any executables, etc. > > > > But the BSD license doesn't require source for distributed binaries. > > Sounds like a GPL-style restriction. > > What is more important to my mind is if the license permits a developer to look > at the code and get inspired, or if the developer's mind will be "tainted" just > by looking. > I hope someone can tell; I always wake up later with my head on the keyboard > when I try to read license stuff... I don't think the licence terms can have any effect on this. If you take an idea from one code base and apply it to another code-bases with a different licence, then the applicable law is going to be fair use. And licence terms cannot affect fair use one way or the other.
-
Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> — 2000-07-31T00:54:52Z
* Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> [000730 16:52] wrote: > Kaare Rasmussen wrote: > > > > > > The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things... > > > > If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to > > > > keep track of where the source came from, label it with > > > > their license, list any modifications you've made, always > > > > provide the source with any executables, etc. > > > > > > But the BSD license doesn't require source for distributed binaries. > > > Sounds like a GPL-style restriction. > > > > What is more important to my mind is if the license permits a developer to look > > at the code and get inspired, or if the developer's mind will be "tainted" just > > by looking. > > I hope someone can tell; I always wake up later with my head on the keyboard > > when I try to read license stuff... > > I don't think the licence terms can have any effect on this. If you take > an idea from one code base and apply it to another code-bases with a > different licence, then the applicable law is going to be fair use. And > licence terms cannot affect fair use one way or the other. With the obvious exception of patented algorithms. You do need to be very careful, at least one major open source project violates USL patents. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."