PG Installer - Licensing Issues

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Andrew Hastie wrote:

As I understand it, I am allowed to redistribute Postgres so long as
I include the copyright notice plus paragraphs as detailed on
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/.

What I want to confirm is that the one-click installer (which I
understand was supplied by EnterpriseDB) can also be redistributed
such that I can bundle Postgres with my "product", and also use the
non-interactive installer (http://www.enterprisedb.com/resources-community/pginst-guide#interactive)
such that I can make the installation as easy as possible for my
users. I've scanned the EnterpriseDB site, but I see nothing that
confirms or denies my thoughts.

I dug into this and found this at the top of the installation notes file
that is created once you install the product, at
/opt/PostgreSQL/9.1/doc/installation-notes.html:

Legal Bits

First the boring legal stuff. The software bundled together in this
package is released under a number of different Open Source licences.
By using any component of this installation package, you agree to
abide by the terms and conditions of it's licence.

The PostgreSQL Server and pgAdmin are released under the PostgreSQL
License.

This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for
use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)

I also found this:

http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/products-overview/licensing
http://www.enterprisedb.com/ba/foss-licenses

Now, this doesn't directly mention the installer, which is gone at the
time this is installed. I know it has the same license as Postgres, but
where is that documented. Dave, any ideas?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Andrew Hastie wrote:

As I understand it, I am allowed to redistribute Postgres so long as
I include the copyright notice plus paragraphs as detailed on
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/.

What I want to confirm is that the one-click installer (which I
understand was supplied by EnterpriseDB) can also be redistributed
such that I can bundle Postgres with my "product", and also use the
non-interactive installer (http://www.enterprisedb.com/resources-community/pginst-guide#interactive)
such that I can make the installation as easy as possible for my
users. I've scanned the EnterpriseDB site, but I see nothing that
confirms or denies my thoughts.

I dug into this and found this at the top of the installation notes file
that is created once you install the product, at
/opt/PostgreSQL/9.1/doc/installation-notes.html:

Legal Bits

First the boring legal stuff. The software bundled together in this
package is released under a number of different Open Source licences.
By using any component of this installation package, you agree to
abide by the terms and conditions of it's licence.

The PostgreSQL Server and pgAdmin are released under the PostgreSQL
License.

This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for
use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)

I also found this:

http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/products-overview/licensing
http://www.enterprisedb.com/ba/foss-licenses

Now, this doesn't directly mention the installer, which is gone at the
time this is installed. I know it has the same license as Postgres, but
where is that documented. Dave, any ideas?

The installer code uses the PostgreSQL licence. I'll clarify the
installation notes doc.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:20:52PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Andrew Hastie wrote:

As I understand it, I am allowed to redistribute Postgres so long as
I include the copyright notice plus paragraphs as detailed on
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/.

What I want to confirm is that the one-click installer (which I
understand was supplied by EnterpriseDB) can also be redistributed
such that I can bundle Postgres with my "product", and also use the
non-interactive installer (http://www.enterprisedb.com/resources-community/pginst-guide#interactive)
such that I can make the installation as easy as possible for my
users. I've scanned the EnterpriseDB site, but I see nothing that
confirms or denies my thoughts.

I dug into this and found this at the top of the installation notes file
that is created once you install the product, at
/opt/PostgreSQL/9.1/doc/installation-notes.html:

Legal Bits

First the boring legal stuff. The software bundled together in this
package is released under a number of different Open Source licences.
By using any component of this installation package, you agree to
abide by the terms and conditions of it's licence.

The PostgreSQL Server and pgAdmin are released under the PostgreSQL
License.

This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for
use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)

I also found this:

http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/products-overview/licensing
http://www.enterprisedb.com/ba/foss-licenses

Now, this doesn't directly mention the installer, which is gone at the
time this is installed. I know it has the same license as Postgres, but
where is that documented. Dave, any ideas?

The installer code uses the PostgreSQL licence. I'll clarify the
installation notes doc.

Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On 08/15/2012 06:45 PM, Andrew Hastie wrote:

As I understand it, I am allowed to redistribute Postgres so long as I
include the copyright notice plus paragraphs as detailed on
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/.

What I want to confirm is that the one-click installer (which I
understand was supplied by EnterpriseDB) can also be redistributed such
that I can bundle Postgres with my "product", and also use the
non-interactive installer
(http://www.enterprisedb.com/resources-community/pginst-guide#interactive)
such that I can make the installation as easy as possible for my users.

This is something I've wanted to raise for a while, and here's a chance.

I'm concerned that the One-click installers are being (ab)used in 3rd
party software, where they're often used to silently install and
uninstall Pg with the default service account, service name, port, etc.

That's a great way to stomp on any existing install the user has made
themselves. I'm particularly concerned about silent uninstalls, though.

The move to the generic service account will help, in that it'll get rid
of the problems with people needing the password to the "postgres"
account created by some silent installer.

In an ideal world the installer would offer "branding" or similar, where
it can be installed with a non-default port, non-default product ID in
the registry, etc; generally sit side-by-side with the same version
installed normally.

I know that's a bunch of work though. Instead, is it worth mentioning
where the (un)install is documented that users of the option should
consider what happens when the user has already installed PostgreSQL
themselves or as part of another product? And maybe offering advice on
the correct use of the .zip binary packages as an alternative for
bundling with an application?

--
Craig Ringer

Thanks for your thoughts Craig, the issue with users having an existing
PG installation is a definite concern.

It sounds like you're recommending using the "ZIP Binaries", at least
for MS Win installs, and configuring things manually rather than using
the one-click installer. If so, are there any guidelines or samples you
know of that I could make use of to help out here? As you say, there
doesn't seem to be any formal documentation on how to do this from what
I can see.

Many thanks,
Andrew

On 08/16/2012 06:46 PM, Andrew Hastie wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts Craig, the issue with users having an
existing PG installation is a definite concern.

It sounds like you're recommending using the "ZIP Binaries", at least
for MS Win installs

I wouldn't go as far as recommending. At this point it's something I
want to raise for discussion here.

Part of why I *wouldn't* necessarily recommend it is that there isn't
much documentation on manual setup for Windows. Where to go from here
will depend on what opinions turn out to be re using the unattended
installer for in-app bundling.

--
Craig Ringer