Thread

1. responses to licensing discussion

   Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com> — 2000-07-04T21:28:07Z

   Thanks to all for their thoughts and comments on the proposed
   license language I posted yesterday.  I'll try and respond to all
   the points I heard in this one mail, rather than fill everyone's
   inbox with more replies.  And I'm also sending this only to
   -general, to cut down on cross-posting...
   
   Two major concerns that a lot of people seem to have are the
   Virginia jurisdiction question and the line about seeing the license
   before you can download/install/etc.  These both relate to the UCITA
   statute, which as Rusty said in his introduction, is intended to
   exempt you the developers from any future liability by people using
   PostgreSQL.  (Well, actually it was written to exempt commercial
   developers, but the same protections apply to open source
   hackers...)  I know there's a lot of FUD out there about UCITA, and
   there may even be some legitimacy to some of the consumer end-user
   fears about what evil Microsoftish companies might do to people that
   buy their software (er, that is, *rent* their software).  But the
   reason we're so interested in applying UCITA protections to
   PostgreSQL developers is that, duh, we plan on contributing to the
   code base as well, and we don't want to get sued.  As someone
   mentioned in an earlier post, the bad guys (Oracle, MS, etc.) will
   increasingly see PostgreSQL as a threat - it just seems prudent, and
   in everyone's interest, to tighten up what a number of legal eagles
   have observed to be liability risks for the developers.  So I'll
   take each of the two points separately:
   
   The non-US folks, who I'll grant may well be a majority ;-), are
   concerned about the jurisdiction in Virginia.  The reason we suggest
   this is that *naming* a jurisdiction is better than leaving it empty
   - any lawyer will tell you that - so you try and claim jurisdiction
   somewhere you think will be friendly to the people you want to
   protect.  With all due respect to the rest of the world, the UCITA
   provisions in Virginia and Maryland, soon to make their way across
   the rest of the US, lead the world in protecting developers from
   liability - and that's our goal.  Without a specified jurisdiction,
   the aggrieved party can shop around for where *he* thinks he has the
   best shot of screwing you.  Chris Bitmead said he's "not bound by"
   UCITA, but that's not the point ... we're trying to bind the users,
   who might decide to try and sue him.  That chose of
   law/jurisdiction, BTW, is different from choice of *venue* - Sevo
   Stille worried that he might have to travel to Virginia for his day
   in court.  The two things are separate.
   
   On a related note, if PostgreSQL is being marketed in the US, it
   will be subject to US law - regardless of where the project says
   it's "based."  Did anyone see the BBC report that Microsoft was
   going to move to Canada to escape US antitrust action?  Despite
   being totally false (but funny), it also wouldn't have mattered for
   the same reason- Microsoft products sold in the US would be subject
   to US law, regardless of where the company was based.
   
   The second point, forcing a click-through or some other mechanism
   before a user downloads/installs the software, gets at the same
   issue.  As a developer, you only get the protection of UCITA if the
   user *agrees* to the license... right now, just having it in the
   tarball or on the CD doesn't meet that test.  There needs to be some
   proactive mechanism that signifies user acceptance of the terms, or
   else the license is just words.  The recent passage in the US of
   digital signature legislation affirms the various mechanisms by
   which you can do that.
   
   Some other threads that I'll try and respond to:
   
   BSD vs. GPL:  As per usual, there's a great deal of misinformation
   out there about what exactly the GNU Public License does.  For
   starters, for all of you who are concerned about lawyerliness,
   length, etc., have you ever read the dang thing?
   (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html)  It's also
   worth noting that the GPL has not yet had its day in court - and
   there are a fair number of legal experts out there who say that it
   might not hold up.  To us at Great Bridge, the BSD language is much
   more likely to survive the next few years.  I said in my first note
   that we want to make sure the code to PostgreSQL stays open in
   perpetuity; several people said, well, GPL does that, so why don't
   you go GPL?  The answer is, we're not trying to be GPL - as several
   of the CORE members reiterated.  We think this is still very much a
   BSD license, and I guess at some point, we ought to drag the OSI
   into it to get their view.  I agree with those who have said the
   last thing the world needs is another open source license.  The
   Mozilla PL, and its imitators such as our friends at Interbase, are
   one good argument there (blecch-
   http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.html).
   
   Previous contributions:  A couple of people asked, ok, so this is a
   proposed solution for future code contributions - what about the
   existing stuff?  We'd suggest that anyone who is currently
   contributing patches could say, in effect, "this goes retroactively
   for everything else I've committed in the past" - which granted
   wouldn't get us all the way there, but probably close to 80%.
   Again, the goal is indemnifcation of the developers who aren't
   coverered as Berkeley-era contributors.  Our lawyers tell us this is
   do-able if people want to do it.  Thoughts?
   
   Finally, a note to all of those who might be suspicious of Great
   Bridge's role in all of this.  Clearly we have an agenda - we want
   to make sure that in addition to its technical near-parity with
   Oracle et al (getting nearer every day), PostgreSQL has the business
   underpinning to survive in the commercial world.  Or better yet,
   survive at the intersection of the open source and commercial
   worlds.  We believe, as an article of faith, that PostgreSQL and
   other open source projects are only going to get better, and eclipse
   their closed/proprietary counterparts in performance, functionality,
   user base, etc.  We intend to build a business that will further and
   support that process - and we have every intention of being
   responsible, proactive members of the open source community in so
   doing.  We're not asking you to trust us, to take our word for
   anything, etc.; we realize that we'll have to prove ourselves, as
   hackers *and* as marketers before anyone necessarily believes a word
   we say.  But we are asking you to keep an open mind, and not to jump
   to conclusions about us.
   
   In the spirit of open source, we've started this discussion as kind
   of a proposed "legal patch" - and seriously encourage as much
   qualified peer review as is possible.  So I'd second Tom Lane's
   suggestion that other people's lawyers look at this- particularly
   those of you outside the US.  But remember that all things being
   equal, the lawyers (hisss....) are in fact the equivalent of the
   hackers here.  Just as you wouldn't expect them to comment
   intelligently on your code, the arcana of license agreements (and to
   a lesser extent, copyrights) are their domain - and it will be other
   peoples' lawyers that make trouble in the future, if there ever is
   any.  So I'd urge everyone to take a deep breath and let's get as
   much *qualified* comment on this as we can.  Also, if anyone wants
   to talk lawyer to lawyer to our corporate counsel, I'd be happy to
   arrange that; please contact me privately off-list.
   
   Thanks,
   Ned
   
   
   

2. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> — 2000-07-04T21:43:48Z

   Ned Lilly wrote:
   > 
   > 
   > The second point, forcing a click-through or some other mechanism
   > before a user downloads/installs the software, gets at the same
   > issue.  As a developer, you only get the protection of UCITA if the
   > user *agrees* to the license... right now, just having it in the
   > tarball or on the CD doesn't meet that test.  There needs to be some
   > proactive mechanism that signifies user acceptance of the terms, or
   > else the license is just words.  The recent passage in the US of
   > digital signature legislation affirms the various mechanisms by
   > which you can do that.
   
   How does this affect the presence of PostgreSQL on RedHat
   distributions, where no such agreement is made? Would it require
   an interface (like Netscape) where the first time psql is started
   the terms are presented? How would that work if I justed wanted
   the server (started like any other service - sendmail, httpd,
   etc. through linuxconf) and used Access/ODBC as a frontend? Is
   this requirement something new?
   
   Just curious, 
   
   Mike Mascari
   
   

3. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Sevo Stille <sevo@ip23.net> — 2000-07-04T23:00:46Z

   Ned Lilly wrote:
   > 
   > That chose of
   > law/jurisdiction, BTW, is different from choice of *venue* - Sevo
   > Stille worried that he might have to travel to Virginia for his day
   > in court.  The two things are separate.
   
   In the US. In Europe, you usually cannot choose a jurisdiction other
   than that of the venue. A choice of jurisdiction could be considered an
   acceptance of the accompanying venue. This may not matter much in a
   liabilities case, as consumer protection rights will often grant them a
   local court whatever the license may say. But I am wary of the
   consequences for any situation where I might want to sue an American
   company. 
   
   > On a related note, if PostgreSQL is being marketed in the US, it
   > will be subject to US law - regardless of where the project says
   > it's "based." 
   
   Indeed it will be subject to local law whereever it is "marketed", if
   the latter can apply to freeware. But the opponent might have the right
   to accept my choice of venue as stated in the license, and I'd rather
   not make any statement that could imply that to be overseas.
   
   > Previous contributions:  A couple of people asked, ok, so this is a
   > proposed solution for future code contributions - what about the
   > existing stuff?  We'd suggest that anyone who is currently
   > contributing patches could say, in effect, "this goes retroactively
   > for everything else I've committed in the past" - which granted
   > wouldn't get us all the way there, but probably close to 80%.
   > Again, the goal is indemnifcation of the developers who aren't
   > coverered as Berkeley-era contributors.  Our lawyers tell us this is
   > do-able if people want to do it.  Thoughts?
   
   The contributors certainly could release their hold on any rights they
   may still have. But while you can waive your rights retrocatively, you
   usually cannot reclaim a right you've already given away, without the
   explicit consent of the other side. We might end up with all
   disadvantages the change brings holding up in court, while the changes
   to our advantage might be ruled out on the base of the previous license. 
   
   Sevo
   
   -- 
   Sevo Stille
   sevo@ip23.net
   
   

4. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Jan Wieck <janwieck@t-online.de> — 2000-07-05T00:36:22Z

   Mike Mascari wrote:
   > Ned Lilly wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > The second point, forcing a click-through or some other mechanism
   > > before a user downloads/installs the software, gets at the same
   > > issue.  As a developer, you only get the protection of UCITA if the
   > > user *agrees* to the license... right now, just having it in the
   > > tarball or on the CD doesn't meet that test.  There needs to be some
   > > proactive mechanism that signifies user acceptance of the terms, or
   > > else the license is just words.  The recent passage in the US of
   > > digital signature legislation affirms the various mechanisms by
   > > which you can do that.
   >
   > How does this affect the presence of PostgreSQL on RedHat
   > distributions, where no such agreement is made? Would it require
   > an interface (like Netscape) where the first time psql is started
   > the terms are presented? How would that work if I justed wanted
   > the server (started like any other service - sendmail, httpd,
   > etc. through linuxconf) and used Access/ODBC as a frontend? Is
   > this requirement something new?
   
       Seems  to  be  something  new in the open source world.  Most
       commercial software I've seen doesn't install  if  you  don't
       accept the license terms in such a click-through way (did you
       ever install some MS products?).
   
       As a developer, I like to  get  the  protection.  So  if  the
       wording  in  the  tarball  doesn't buy it for me, it's wasted
       bandwidth and we should better remove it.
   
       For source distributions I think it's easy to add such a step
       to the configure process. A switch like --accept-license that
       just suppresses the y/n question (not the displaying  of  the
       license itself) should do it for the hackers.
   
       So the problem left are binary distributions.
   
       I'm  in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
       felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way  while
       most  commercial  players  do.  Maybe it's something we don't
       have to worry about, but what if so?  What  if  we  all  have
       already  one  foot  in jail and just don't know? Oh boy, what
       about all the patches,  modules,  whatnot  I  contributed  to
       other  open  source  projects during the past 20 years? Can I
       sleep well tonight?
   
       Well, most of the things I've done in the past 20 years don't
       made  it  that  far  that  they  became a threat for some big
       player. This time it's  different  and  I  welcome  any  real
       lawyers  advice.  If  it  means we cannot distribute binaries
       unless the install procedures provide a license-click-through
       feature, that might be it until they do.
   
   
   Jan
   
   --
   
   #======================================================================#
   # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
   # Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
   #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
   
   
   
   

5. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> — 2000-07-05T04:18:03Z

   At 02:36 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
   >
   >    So the problem left are binary distributions.
   >
   
   There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
   flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
   architectures that support RPM.
   
   We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the
   postmaster is started etc etc.
   
   We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they
   first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is
   access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users
   never see the BSD waiver of PG...
   
   
   
   
   
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   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   |/
   
   

6. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> — 2000-07-05T04:38:22Z

   Philip Warner wrote:
   
   > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
   > flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
   > architectures that support RPM.
   > 
   > We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the
   > postmaster is started etc etc.
   > 
   > We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they
   > first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is
   > access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users
   > never see the BSD waiver of PG...
   
   Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
   from the code?
   
   Read the GPL and LGPL - they have thought of these issues. It just shows
   you can't "fix" the BSD licence with a couple of quick-fix add-ons. I
   propose the exclusion clause in COPYRIGHT be widened to include everyone
   in the universe and leave it at that. In reality it's the only change
   that is going to get up.
   
   

7. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com> — 2000-07-05T04:51:09Z

   Chris Bitmead wrote:
   > 
   > Philip Warner wrote:
   > 
   > > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
   > > flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
   > > architectures that support RPM.
   > >
   > > We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the
   > > postmaster is started etc etc.
   > >
   > > We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they
   > > first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is
   > > access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users
   > > never see the BSD waiver of PG...
   > 
   > Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
   > from the code?
   > 
   > Read the GPL and LGPL - they have thought of these issues. It just shows
   > you can't "fix" the BSD licence with a couple of quick-fix add-ons. I
   > propose the exclusion clause in COPYRIGHT be widened to include everyone
   > in the universe and leave it at that. In reality it's the only change
   > that is going to get up.
   
   Yes. It should read (in a nutshell):
   
   Do whatever the hell you want with this software, but use it at
   your own risk.
   
   Mike Mascari
   
   

8. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> — 2000-07-05T05:02:57Z

   At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
   >
   >Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
   >from the code?
   
   Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
   That's why they're there.
   
   
   >Read the GPL and LGPL - they have thought of these issues. It just shows
   >you can't "fix" the BSD licence with a couple of quick-fix add-ons. I
   >propose the exclusion clause in COPYRIGHT be widened to include everyone
   >in the universe and leave it at that. In reality it's the only change
   >that is going to get up.
   
   I agree. But I'd like to propose a further addition to the exclusions
   regarding limiting liabilities. I'll send it to the list ASAP.
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   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   |/
   
   

9. Re: responses to licensing discussion

   Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> — 2000-07-05T05:11:46Z

   Philip Warner wrote:
   > 
   > At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
   > >
   > >Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
   > >from the code?
   > 
   > Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
   > That's why they're there.
   
   Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
   fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
   along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
   Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you
   have no contract with is pretty tenuous.
   
   

10. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> — 2000-07-05T05:32:33Z

    At 15:11 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
    >
    >Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
    >fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
    >along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
    >Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you
    >have no contract with is pretty tenuous.
    >
    
    They key issue here (I'd guess) is where the software came from.
    
    But I agree - it's just a total nightmare when you start getting into this.
    eg. one of the questions I am waiting on an answer for if whether Marc can
    be sued because he provided the software from his server.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    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   |/
    
    

11. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Gilles DAROLD <gilles@darold.net> — 2000-07-05T08:57:28Z

    Hi,
    
    I have some problem to understand why you have to change the PostgreSQL
    Licence
    agreement. You are really making confusion into my mind. For me I have this
    licence
    come with all my distributions :
    
        PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres,
    then as Postgres95).
    
        Copyright (c) 1994-7 Regents of the University of California
    
        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.
    
         etc...
    
    This the most open licence you can do, isn't it ?
    
    It just come a commercial company and things must change, why ? There's
    already companies
    saling PostgreSQL as a commercial product (see Adabas or Ingres it's looks
    like Postgres !).
    
    If you do OSS and give all the code to the community for free, what do you
    have to be protected from
    that is not done ?
    
    Your discussion seems to applies to all current programmers of PostgreSQL,
    but what about
    the olders, are they agree with this ? And if the copyrigth belong to the
    University of California
    what programmers can do to protect their works ?
    
    Apology my poor understanding but it smell something wrong for me.  Is
    PostgreSQL Inc. have
    the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge concerning this licence migration
    ?
    
    Regards,
    
    Gilles DAROLD
    
    
    

12. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2000-07-05T12:17:46Z

    On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
    
    > Hi,
    > 
    > I have some problem to understand why you have to change the PostgreSQL
    > Licence
    > agreement. You are really making confusion into my mind. For me I have this
    > licence
    > come with all my distributions :
    > 
    >     PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres,
    > then as Postgres95).
    > 
    >     Copyright (c) 1994-7 Regents of the University of California
    > 
    >     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.
    > 
    >      etc...
    > 
    > This the most open licence you can do, isn't it ?
    > 
    > It just come a commercial company and things must change, why ? There's
    > already companies
    > saling PostgreSQL as a commercial product (see Adabas or Ingres it's looks
    > like Postgres !).
    > 
    > If you do OSS and give all the code to the community for free, what do you
    > have to be protected from
    > that is not done ?
    > 
    > Your discussion seems to applies to all current programmers of PostgreSQL,
    > but what about
    > the olders, are they agree with this ? And if the copyrigth belong to the
    > University of California
    > what programmers can do to protect their works ?
    > 
    > Apology my poor understanding but it smell something wrong for me.  
    > Is PostgreSQL Inc. have the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge
    > concerning this licence migration ?
    
    Nope ... this is purely a perceived problem by the Landmark/Great Bridge
    folk ... one that I can't count how many OSS projects out there
    don't/haven't felt a need for *shrug*
    
    
    

13. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@h00a0cc3b7988.ne.mediaone.net> — 2000-07-05T12:35:12Z

    Philip Warner wrote:
    > 
    > At 02:36 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
    > >
    > >    So the problem left are binary distributions.
    > >
    > 
    > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
    > flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
    > architectures that support RPM.
    
    RPM does allow this. But it does sort of screw up the distribution
    process to have all these dialogs in the RPMS.  With redhat, I fire up
    the installation and walk away because redhat has been pretty religious
    about suppressing dialogs.  With debian, I fire up the install, then
    keep comimg back to the machine every 15 minute because one package or
    another is waiting for me to enter a few keystrokes (NOTE to
    distribution partisans - there are things I like better about each
    distribution - I'm not advocating one over the other here)
    
    > We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the
    > postmaster is started etc etc.
    
    On initdb seems reasonable, and gets around the issue above.
    
    > We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they
    > first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is
    > access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users
    > never see the BSD waiver of PG...
    
    Why don't they? The installer accepts the license.  It is then the role
    of the installer to ensure that all the people he/she supports
    understand how the software may be used, IMHO. For instance, unless I am
    the installer of M$ Office, I don't see the shrink wrap.  Which means
    nearly all users in an office don't see the shrink wrap.  But that seems
    okay to M$.
    
    I would urge that this issue of actively acknowleging license not be
    carried too far. In the extreme, imagine connecting to a MS IIS web
    server, it checks afor a unique cookie on your machine and says "Hmm - I
    don't know that this user has ever connected to IIS before - they have
    not been to my site - so I'd better pop up a dialog first"
    
    IMHO, it is your responsibilty os the provider of services to make your
    users aware of the various licenses that apply. If PG adopts something
    like the above mechanism, then you may well want to have a dialog for
    your users to do just that.  But PG should not dictate how I interact
    with my users.
    
    Instead of disturbing my web users, maybe there should be an additional
    requirement in the license that says people who repackage postgres, or
    make it available through other means, are responsible for ensuring that
    the users are aware of the license requirements.  Then a RedHat type
    vendor can add the PG license to their intro screen, or they can leave a
    message in initdb active. PG could provide tools to make notification on
    first connect easier, but I do not believe that needs to be enforced by
    PG.
    
    Come to think of it, this sort of propagation clause may be needed
    anyway. Otheriwse, I could download PG by clicking through your license
    screen on the website, then post it to an ftp repository somewhere. Once
    I've done that, it seems to me that someone downloading from my ftp site
    would never acknowlege the license, and there you are on the hook again.
    
    Right now the BSD handles this passive for the passive case - the
    license stipulates that the license must appear in derivative products. 
    If active acknowlegement is required (not that I like the idea, but if
    it is required to protect developers) then that active aknowlegement
    must somehow stipulate that all deriviative products need to include
    some similar form of active acknowlegement. Otherwise you will never be
    able to distribute source, and it won't be open source anymore.
    
    
    -- 
    Karl DeBisschop
    
    

14. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com> — 2000-07-05T13:09:53Z

    Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
    
    > At 02:36 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
    > >
    > >    So the problem left are binary distributions.
    > >
    > 
    > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
    > flexible running of scripts
    
    Yes. But it is designed to be a non-interactive backend.
    
    -- 
    Trond Eivind Glomsrød
    Red Hat, Inc.
    
    

15. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-07-05T16:27:57Z

    The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
    > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
    >> Is PostgreSQL Inc. have the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge
    >> concerning this licence migration ?
    
    > Nope ... this is purely a perceived problem by the Landmark/Great Bridge
    > folk ... one that I can't count how many OSS projects out there
    > don't/haven't felt a need for *shrug*
    
    Au contraire --- we have had repeated discussions in the past about the
    license, and quite a few folks have expressed concern that we need to
    alter the pure Berkeley language we inherited.  This particular proposal
    is from Great Bridge and has some stuff in it that was never proposed
    before, but please don't claim that there's not been any perceived
    problem.  There has been.
    
    I'm not sold on adopting Great Bridge's proposal as-is, but this is a
    fine opportunity to fix those concerns that have come up again and
    again.  We should do *something*, preferably something that looks
    good to real lawyers (as many as we can get to look at the problem).
    
    As Ned pointed out, you don't want lawyers hacking on the guts of
    Postgres, and you shouldn't want hackers hacking on the license either.
    We don't know what we're doing in that sphere.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    

16. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2000-07-05T16:36:55Z

    Ned Lilly writes:
    
    > With all due respect to the rest of the world, the UCITA provisions in
    > Virginia and Maryland, soon to make their way across the rest of the
    > US, lead the world in protecting developers from liability - and
    > that's our goal.
    
    Considering that you, AFAICT, don't know anything about the laws outside
    of the U.S., I'll take that as speculation.
    
    > Without a specified jurisdiction, the aggrieved party can shop around
    > for where *he* thinks he has the best shot of screwing you.
    
    That is definitely false.
    
    > The second point, forcing a click-through or some other mechanism
    > before a user downloads/installs the software, gets at the same issue.
    
    I'll tell you right now, you might as well forget about that. PostgreSQL
    would be laughed out of the building if we did that.
    
    > The recent passage in the US of digital signature legislation affirms
    > the various mechanisms by which you can do that.
    
    The PostgreSQL servers are in Canada, thankyouverymuch.
    
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
    peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
    http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden
    
    
    

17. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2000-07-05T16:52:48Z

    On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
    > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
    > >> Is PostgreSQL Inc. have the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge
    > >> concerning this licence migration ?
    > 
    > > Nope ... this is purely a perceived problem by the Landmark/Great Bridge
    > > folk ... one that I can't count how many OSS projects out there
    > > don't/haven't felt a need for *shrug*
    > 
    > Au contraire --- we have had repeated discussions in the past about the
    > license, and quite a few folks have expressed concern that we need to
    > alter the pure Berkeley language we inherited.  This particular proposal
    > is from Great Bridge and has some stuff in it that was never proposed
    > before, but please don't claim that there's not been any perceived
    > problem.  There has been.
    
    Oops, sorry ... I *do* like the extra BOLD stuff, as I like the fact that
    it extends the license to cover non-UNIVERSITY developers ... hadn't meant
    to make it such an 'all-encompassing' statement ... as you state, there
    are bits of it that I do like ...
    
    But, I am also firmly of the opinion that if the BSD license "as is" was
    such a big problem legal, projects like the *BSDs would have long changed
    theirs ... the FreeBSD folks have their own 'retained legal counsel' that
    they've been workign with through the whole cryptography debate, so I
    don't think that they would have overlooked this if it was a problem ...
    
    Personally, I'd like the whole thing weeded down to ... get rid of the
    'juristiction of ...' (which nobody outside of the US will agree to, from
    what I've been seeing on the list) ... and get rid of "Any person who
    contributes ..." paragraph, which several ppl have voiced a concern about,
    and we might have something that non-US developers can agree to ...
    
    can someone also explain to me what ", NEED, OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED
    WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS
    NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST
    INFRINGEMENT." is supposed to mean?  what the hell is "INTERFERENCE WITH
    ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT"?
    
    
    ===============
    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
    
    -------------------------
    
    PostgreSQL is not public domain software.  It is copyrighted by the
    University of California but may be used according to the following
    licensing terms:
    
    POSTGRES95 Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres, then
    as Postgres95).
    
    Copyright (c) 1994-8 Regents of the University of California
    
    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.
    
    IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
    DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING
    LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS
    DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
    THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
    
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES,
    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
    AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS
    ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS
    TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
    
    -------------------------
    
    Copyright ( 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by various contributors (as
    identified in HISTORY) (collectively "Developers") which may be used
    according to the following licensing terms:
    
    Worldwide 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, on a non-exclusive basis, provided that the
    above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following paragraphs appear
    in all copies:
    
    IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY DEVELOPER BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT,
    INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING,
    WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE
    AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
    POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
    
    THE DEVELOPERS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
    INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
    FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NEED, OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED
    WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS
    NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST
    INFRINGEMENT.  THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN
    "AS IS" BASIS.  NO DEVELOPER HAS ANY OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE,
    SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO OR FOR THE SOFTWARE OR
    DOCUMENTATION.
    
    BY USING THIS SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  IF YOU DO
    NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU SHOULD NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE.
    
    
    

18. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov — 2000-07-05T19:19:28Z

    Jan Wieck wrote:
    
    >     I'm  in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
    >     felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way  while
    >     most  commercial  players  do.  Maybe it's something we don't
    >     have to worry about, but what if so?  What  if  we  all  have
    >     already  one  foot  in jail and just don't know?
    
    This is exactly the the kind of sentiment that the UCITA proponents
    sought to make as widespread as possible.
    
    >     Oh boy, what
    >     about all the patches,  modules,  whatnot  I  contributed  to
    >     other  open  source  projects during the past 20 years? Can I
    >     sleep well tonight?
    
    They thought about that, too. UCITA is designed to be applied
    retroactively, so you can sleep well knowing that there's nothing you
    can do to prevent the Maryland residents from suing you for the
    damages they suffered from your code over the last 20 years. Now if it
    is true that the UCITA was meant to be a weapon of intimidation, it
    seems to have started working: everybody is at least concerned, if not
    scared. But it definitely goes overboard with its retroactive
    capability, which actually makes it less intimidating: what's the use
    in worrying about the future if we all have one foot in jail because
    of our deeds in the past?
    
    Back to work, folks ...
    
    --Gene
    
    

19. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    mikeo <mikeo@spectrumtelecorp.com> — 2000-07-05T20:23:54Z

    At 02:19 PM 7/5/00 -0500, selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov wrote:
    >
    >Jan Wieck wrote:
    >
    >>     I'm  in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
    >>     felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way  while
    >>     most  commercial  players  do.  Maybe it's something we don't
    >>     have to worry about, but what if so?  What  if  we  all  have
    >>     already  one  foot  in jail and just don't know?
    >
    >This is exactly the the kind of sentiment that the UCITA proponents
    >sought to make as widespread as possible.
    >
    >>     Oh boy, what
    >>     about all the patches,  modules,  whatnot  I  contributed  to
    >>     other  open  source  projects during the past 20 years? Can I
    >>     sleep well tonight?
    >
    >They thought about that, too. UCITA is designed to be applied
    >retroactively, so you can sleep well knowing that there's nothing you
    >can do to prevent the Maryland residents from suing you for the
    >damages they suffered from your code over the last 20 years. Now if it
    >is true that the UCITA was meant to be a weapon of intimidation, it
    >seems to have started working: everybody is at least concerned, if not
    >scared. But it definitely goes overboard with its retroactive
    >capability, which actually makes it less intimidating: what's the use
    >in worrying about the future if we all have one foot in jail because
    >of our deeds in the past?
    >
    >Back to work, folks ...
    >
    >--Gene
    >
    
    not being from maryland but, i would think that the constitution's
    prohibition against ex post facto laws would prevent retro-active
    applications of laws, if the usa actually followed the constitution;
    but that's another topic...
    
    mikeo
    
    

20. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Jim Jennis <jhjennis@shentel.net> — 2000-07-06T00:17:12Z

    Hi Postgresql Colleagues,
    
    I have been a user of Postgresql for a long time and seldom post here, but
    after reading the recent fray over license changes, I feel compelled to
    post this.
    
    Just to add my miniscule .02 to this discussion.... As a contributor to
    open source (and also a commercial developer) for many years, I lament the
    fact that lawyers of whatever stripe now seek to both advise and capitalize
    on the creativity and generosity of the worldwide technical community who
    contribute freely to develop and make available programs like Postgresql.
    
    What a pity! We (at least in the US) live in such a litigious society
    (nearly everyone seems unwilling to take responsibility for their own
    actions) that we now need legal advice and opinions on how to protect
    individuals who give freely of their own time and creativity.
    
    I guess this is why people (and even medical professionals) in the US will
    seldom stop to help someone who is in need anymore. (they might get sued
    for doing a good deed!!!)
    
    If you are employed by someone like M$ your corporate profits can afford
    these high priced prostitutes to keep you safe from law suits by people and
    organizations too ignorant to know what they are doing and who are
    unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions. However, if you
    are an open source contributor and are intelligent and creative and
    contributing to something worthwhile to humanity for zero personal gain...
    (such as developing code that overall benefits society), you must still
    consort with these vultures for fear you may lose your livelihood to one of
    the people you sought to help.
    
    Call me naieve, idealistic, stupid, unrealistic or whatever... but I find
    the whole discussion simply an amazing (and also deplorable) commentary on
    the current state of affairs.
    
    BTW...are the people who write the VB (aka virus builder) programs such as
    the recent "love bug" covered under UCITA?? Perhaps this would be a good
    new business venture for the lawyers? I think I remember hearing some FBI
    people lamenting the fact that Phillipine law would not permit prosecution.
    Maybe we can get them covered under Virginia law also! After all, these
    people did slightly more damage in one day than all the bugs in the history
    of open source programs like Postgresql. Along the same lines...is
    MicroSoft liable for having released VBA? I have not seen any lawsuits
    aimed at Bill and the VBA developers for having provided such easily
    abusable "functionality" in their product?
    
    Sorry for the rant...
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim
    
    
    
    
    
     ,-,-.     ,-,-.     ,-,-.     ,-,-.     ,-
    / / \ \   / / \ \   / / \ \   / / \ \   / /
         \ \ / /   \ \ / /   \ \ / /   \ \ / / 
          `-'-'     `-'-'     `-'-'     `-'-'  
    --------------------------------------------------------
    FSC - Building Better Information Technology Solutions-
          From the Production Floor to the Customer's Door.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    
    Jim Jennis, Technical Director, Commercial Systems
    Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.
    1 Discovery Place, Suite 2
    Martinsburg, WV. 25401 USA.
    
    Phone: +001 (304) 263-0163 ext 235
    FAX:   +001 (304) 263-0702
    
    Email: jjennis@fuentez.com
           jhjennis@shentel.net
    Web:   http://www.discovery.fuentez.com/
    ---------------------------------------------------                   
    
    
    

21. Re: responses to licensing discussion

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2000-07-06T16:13:22Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:
    
    > Personally, I'd like the whole thing weeded down to ... get rid of the
    > 'juristiction of ...' (which nobody outside of the US will agree to, from
    > what I've been seeing on the list) ... and get rid of "Any person who
    > contributes ..." paragraph, which several ppl have voiced a concern about,
    > and we might have something that non-US developers can agree to ...
    > 
    > can someone also explain to me what ", NEED, OR QUALITY, AND ANY IMPLIED
    > WARRANTY FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS
    > NO IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST
    > INFRINGEMENT." is supposed to mean?  what the hell is "INTERFERENCE WITH
    > ENJOYMENT OR AGAINST INFRINGEMENT"?
    
    It means if you don't enjoy it, you can't sue. :-)
    
    I don't see any point for not using the same BOLD (or the same text, for
    that matter) that the UCB used, as has been suggested a hundred times
    before. We'd make the extra point of "Licenses are so stupid, they make us
    write this twice."
    
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
    peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
    http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden