License question

Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz> writes:

In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
license. The problem is that there are two.

We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the
source tree, which is also available for your reading pleasure by
clicking on the "license" link on that same front page.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz> writes:

In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
license. The problem is that there are two.

We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the
source tree, which is also available for your reading pleasure by
clicking on the "license" link on that same front page.

regards, tom lane

Ok, let me explain the issue in a finer point.

The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means. In particular, this puts some doubt on whether I can use the
code in an LGPL project.

Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what is
the requirement?

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/

Shachar Shemesh wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz> writes:

In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
license. The problem is that there are two.

We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the
source tree, which is also available for your reading pleasure by
clicking on the "license" link on that same front page.

regards, tom lane

Ok, let me explain the issue in a finer point.

The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means. In particular, this puts some doubt on whether I can use the
code in an LGPL project.

Where do you see that? No one else has seen that requirement before,
and such a requirement doesn't exist.

Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what is
the requirement?

None. Just don't sue us.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means.

What license text do you think implies this?

-Neil

Neil Conway wrote:

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means.

What license text do you think implies this?

-Neil

provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the
following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

I read that to mean that all copies must have the same license.

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/

Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz> writes:

Neil Conway wrote:

What license text do you think implies this?

provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the
following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

I read that to mean that all copies must have the same license.

No, that says that you can't remove the copyright notice from files that
have it. It doesn't say that nearby files have to have the same
license. (Compare to the GPL, which *does* say that.)

The bottom line here is that you cannot relicense code you didn't write;
this is generally true no matter what license it is distributed under.
You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a
different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

No, that says that you can't remove the copyright notice from files that
have it. It doesn't say that nearby files have to have the same
license. (Compare to the GPL, which *does* say that.)

The bottom line here is that you cannot relicense code you didn't write;
this is generally true no matter what license it is distributed under.

No it isn't. If I write code under the LGPL, for example, all you have
to do in order to relicense it is make sure you live up to all of my
requirements. In particular, this means that you CAN relicense it as
GPL, without asking for my permission. Distributing it as GPL makes sure
all of my restrictions are met.

If I relicense this code as LGPL, however, I cannot guarentee that all
of my derived work will have the banners (the LGPL does guarentee that
the copyright notice stay). Hence, I read it as "you cannot use this
code in an LGPL project".

You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a
different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license.

But that's not the BSD license.

regards, tom lane

But that, in turn, means I cannot put them in an LGPL licensed project
(or in a proprietary one, but that's not my problem). The LGPL requires
that all files under the same project be under the LGPL.

The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's, does NOT require me to
copy license related texts around, only the copyrights themselves. It
does pose certain restrictions on what I am allowed to do with the
copyrights, but any modern free software license (GPL included) require
that you keep the copyright notices around

Now, I'm not trying to heal the world. It's enough to me that the
current copyright owners give me permissions to use the code under the
LGPL license. I am saying that calling the PostgreSQL license "BSD
license" is misleading.

I'll also mention that I am, very likely, wrong in my interpretation of
the license. The PostgreSQL license is very similar to the X11 license
(http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html), which is interpreted by the FSF
to be GPL compatible
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License). This means
I'm defnitely missing something here. What, however?

Oh, or is the license in my link the NEW X11 license, known to be
non-GPL compatible?

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/

Shachar Shemesh wrote:

Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what
is the requirement?

You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or
the binary, depending on what you ship. A strict interpretation would
say that considering the combined work, this is an additional
requirement on top of the [L]GPL, so it is not allowed by the terms of
the [L]GPL. (But it is allowed by the terms of the PostgreSQL
license.) A looser interpretation would say that what the PostgreSQL
license text says is essentially a subset of what the [L]GPL already
says anyway, so adding the requirements of the PostgreSQL license on
top of it does not actually impose additional requirements, so there is
no problem. Which one of these interpretations you believe is between
you and the copyright holders of that LGPL'ed work, but the PostgreSQL
copyright holders don't care.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Shachar Shemesh wrote:

Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what
is the requirement?

You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or
the binary, depending on what you ship. A strict interpretation would
say that considering the combined work, this is an additional
requirement on top of the [L]GPL, so it is not allowed by the terms of
the [L]GPL. (But it is allowed by the terms of the PostgreSQL
license.) A looser interpretation would say that what the PostgreSQL
license text says is essentially a subset of what the [L]GPL already
says anyway, so adding the requirements of the PostgreSQL license on
top of it does not actually impose additional requirements, so there is
no problem. Which one of these interpretations you believe is between
you and the copyright holders of that LGPL'ed work, but the PostgreSQL
copyright holders don't care.

Unfortunetly, I'm the only LGPL copyright holder in this case. It's
unfortunate because it means noone else has joined in on this project
yet (OLE DB provider).

I'll be more than happy to accept your explanation (and it does fit in
with FSF's assertation that the X11 license is GPL compatible). The only
paragraph that bothered me to begin with was the one claiming I need to
copy verbatim the license.

If all I am required to do is to make sure the license is ENFORCED by
all of my derived work, then yes, the LGPL does that and I'm home free.

I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at
the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like
license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license
by now.

Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/

Shachar Shemesh wrote:

Neil Conway wrote:

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means.

What license text do you think implies this?

-Neil

provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the
following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

I read that to mean that all copies must have the same license.

It just means you can't remove the original license file.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at
the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like
license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license
by now.

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html

They look very similar to me. What's the difference?

Also, I'm a little confused. If you mix some postgresql-licensed code
with some (for example) gpl-licensed code, is the end result:
(a) GPL, since that's the more restrictive of the two; or
(b) The gpl code is still gpl, and the postgresql code is still
postgresql-licensed?

"b" makes more sense to me, since I don't see how you can "relicense"
the code if it's not yours.

Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes:

Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.

You can't relicense code you don't own (if Shachar thinks differently
I suggest he talk to a lawyer). What you can do is choose a license for
*your modifications and additions* to that base code. When working with
BSD-tradition base code, there is hardly any restriction on what license
you use for your own work (at least, not from the BSD side --- see below).

When working with GPL or LGPL base code you are constrained to use the
same license as the base. You still own your own work, but you can't
redistribute the combined work unless you use the same license.

I don't think you could reasonably choose GPL as the license for your
mods/additions, since by my reading of the GPL it would forbid you from
redistributing a combined work that's not all GPL. But you could choose
LGPL, or any of the other standard free licenses.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes:

Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.

You can't relicense code you don't own

Sure you can.

(if Shachar thinks differently
I suggest he talk to a lawyer).

I have. And one who specializes in free software licenses, at that.

Let's give an example which is simpler, and therefor may make the case a
little clearer. Supposed you painted a picture and give out electronic
versions of it (you have the copyright). You allow everyone to
redistribute the picture, so long as the general tone of the background
color remains blue (license, pretty permissive).

Now let's suppose I take your picture and make several modifications on
it, but none that violates your license (i.e. - the background is still
blueish). Both of us have copyright over the new work, but I may only
distribute it under a license that makes sure that the restrictions I
received it under are met. This means I cannot public domain the
picture. If I do, I am violating your copyright over the picture, as I
can no longer guarentee that the background remains blue. In that sense,
I cannot "relicense" the picture. This is the case even if my public
domain copies still have a blue background, as I have now given people
permission to change a work of art for which you hold a copyright,
outside of the permission you have given either them or me.

One obvious solution is to redistribute it under the original license -
do whatever you like with it, so long as the background remains blue.
That is, however, not the only one. I can also change the license to
whatever I want, so long as I can assure you that your original
requirements are met with any work derived from the new license. For
example, it is perfectly ok to say "you can redistribute this picture,
but you are not allowed to change anything about the color scheme". The
new requirement encapsulates the original requirement, and your license
is therefor not violated. I have, in fact, relicensed your work.

This applies even if I did not make any change to your original work at
all. So long as I can show that all terms of your original license are
met if people follow my new license, you have no quarrel with me. You
requested that people don't change the background color theme. They
can't if they can't change the color theme at all.

Now, obviously, if people can get a picture to me under a certain
restrictive license, and they can get the exact same picture from you
under a more permissive license, they are unlikely to get the picture
from me. That is, however, market forces, not copyright licensing.

If you accept that, just replace "blue" with "free".

(at least, not from the BSD side --- see below).

When working with GPL or LGPL base code you are constrained to use the
same license as the base. You still own your own work, but you can't
redistribute the combined work unless you use the same license.

I don't think you could reasonably choose GPL as the license for your
mods/additions, since by my reading of the GPL it would forbid you from
redistributing a combined work that's not all GPL.

But the (new, not old) BSD license is "GPL compatible", which means that
I can relicense your work released under the 3 clause BSD as GPL. The
original 4 clause BSD is not GPL compatible, which means I cannot.
Comparing restrictions, and whether license X can guarentee that all the
restrictions imposed by license Y are still met, is what stands at the
core of saying "license X is compatible with license Y".

But you could choose
LGPL, or any of the other standard free licenses.

Hmm, not really. As I'm talking about putting code from PostgreSQL into
the OLE DB provider proper, the linking clause of the LGPL does not
cover this. Let's make it clear - as the LGPL code is all mine, noone
can do or say anything to me if I mix it with non-relicensed BSD code. I
am not violating the BSD license, because it's still BSD, and the person
doing the LGPL license violation is me, the copyright holder, so noone
can have any qualm with this (it's the copyright holder that has to sue,
and I won't sue myself). Doing this does mean that noone except me can
touch this project without removing the BSD code (or relicensing, but
I'm assuming here I accept your claim that I cannot relicense), except
me. Creating free software with conflicting licenses code is legal but
highly recommended against.

regards, tom lane

Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a
different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license.

But that's not the BSD license.

[...]

The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's, does NOT require me to
copy license related texts around, only the copyrights themselves. It

From the BSD license template on the OSI site:

# Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

So, afaics, it *does* require you to copy the list of conditions along
with the files.

Shachar Shemesh kirjutas N, 22.04.2004 kell 19:49:

The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's, does NOT require me to
copy license related texts around, only the copyrights themselves. It
does pose certain restrictions on what I am allowed to do with the
copyrights, but any modern free software license (GPL included)
require that you keep the copyright notices around

* Copyrights by themselves do not give others any rights to use
copyrighted material, licenses do. Copyrights "reserve all rights" by
default.

* On can license only that for what he owns IP (copyright, patent, ...).

ergo, to allow other to use the code, there must be a license from the
copyright holder.

If you just keep the copyrights and not the license (either as full text
or reference) you either effectively deny others the right to use the
code as provided by you or claim ownership of code you do not really
own.

Now, I'm not trying to heal the world. It's enough to me that the
current copyright owners give me permissions to use the code under the
LGPL license. I am saying that calling the PostgreSQL license "BSD
license" is misleading.

IIRC BSD stands for "Berkeley Standard Distribution", and as PostgreSQL
was originally released as free software from Berkeley under this
license it would be weird indeed to call it anything else.

----------
Hannu

Shachar Shemesh kirjutas R, 23.04.2004 kell 07:53:

Tom Lane wrote:

Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes:

Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.

You can't relicense code you don't own

Sure you can.

You can only add additional restrictions for the combined code, not lift
original ones. That is unless the original licence allows it :)

You are free to relicence public domain code though, but I guess that by
doing so you kind of take ownership of your release verion.

IANAL

---------------
Hannu

IIRC BSD stands for "Berkeley Standard Distribution", and as PostgreSQL
was originally released as free software from Berkeley under this
license it would be weird indeed to call it anything else.

FWIW, 'Berkeley Software Distribution'.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -- Shachar Shemesh <psql@shemesh.biz> wrote:

The new requirement encapsulates the original requirement, and your
license is therefor not violated. I have, in fact, relicensed your work.

no, the license is only for the *combined* work (which includes your work).
Extracting the original picture, this picture is still under the "blue only"
license!

Ciao
Alvar

- --
** Alvar C.H. Freude -- http://alvar.a-blast.org/ -- http://odem.org/
** Berufsverbot? http://odem.org/aktuelles/staatsanwalt.de.html
** ODEM.org-Tour: http://tour.odem.org/
** 5 Jahre Blaster: http://www.a-blast.de/ | http://www.a-blast.de/statistik/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAiYs5OndlH63J86wRAjflAJ9Tpg6QvvVJTRAThq42b5oXXmxkqgCfSv08
CsS0RzWeFzgtAfcOZq+x/Po=
=Lhtc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----