Misplaced modifier in Postgresql license
Something very important was recently raised on the misc@openbsd.org
list. Due to the current environment that SCO is fostering in the
open source community, it would be prudent for the PostgreSQL team to
consider this issue.
The website claims that "PostgreSQL is distributed under the flexible
BSD license". A glance at the license appears to confirm this,
however, there is a misplaced modifier in the first paragraph
following the copyright notices:
"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."
I have used CAPS to highlight the apparent error. There are two ways
to interpret this statement. One interpretation is that permission is
given and no fee will be charged for the granting of that permission.
The other is that permission is given so long as by using the software
no fee is charged to others. The result of this ambiguity is that the
latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql. It
is on the ftp sites, but the OpenBSD CDs are distributed for a fee
because they are a profit generator for the project. The project has
encountered problems in the past regarding ambiguous licenses, and as
a result the need to protect the porject outweighs the convenience of
distributing packages with ambiguous licenses.
I believe that this is merely a bug in the wording of the license, and
that it doesn't reflect the intention of the project. I hope that my
words will be considered carefully, and that appropriate steps will be
taken to resolve this problem.
Thank you.
Breen Ouellette
OpenBSD & PostgreSQL user
Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
The result of this ambiguity is that the
latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's
box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute
Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
The result of this ambiguity is that the
latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes Postgresql
We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.
but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)
Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's
box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute
Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.
i find this somewhat hostile response troubling.
it's common for geeks on the net to play at being lawyers, and it
is also common to discover later that the law doesn't work the way
the geeks want it to.
in the case of PostgreSQL's removal from the OpenBSD CDs, it
was done as part of an ongoing license audit -- and it is important
to note that it wasn't an uninformed decision. Theo actually consulted
with IP lawyers, and so there is some actual, direct legal advice
to the effect that the misplaced "without fee" clause is a potential
problem.
so in this case, Theo and the OpenBSD team aren't "playing
lawyer". they went to the trouble to actually talk to one.
if you go to the trouble to talk to the IP lawyers for the Regents,
you may find that you can easily get permission to migrate the
license to the current "BSD License".
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
The result of this ambiguity is that the
latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes PostgresqlWe are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from
every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there
might be someone in there who disagrees with the change.
Not even the Regents can backdate a licence chage and have it affect all
subsequent contributions.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Show quoted text
"All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good
men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
"The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be
governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato
Tom Lane wrote:
Breen Ouellette <the.man@breeno.net> writes:
The result of this ambiguity is that the
latest CD release of OpenBSD (3.4) no longer includes PostgresqlWe are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
We do not have the right to, nor any interest in doing so.Our interpretation of the license is that it's okay for downstream
redistributors to charge a fee. We are not going to open the Pandora's
box of "clarifying" the wording, however. If you will not redistribute
Postgres without a "clarification", that is your problem not ours.
Agreed.
If you have changed original BSD license on the code you got from
Berkeley that had this wording, seems you could just change the wording
of the PostgreSQL code too. Seems to be the same issue.
I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like. :-)
--
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 19073On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:01:39 +1100 Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also require permission from
every other contributer to PostgreSQL ever? I mean, hypothetically there
might be someone in there who disagrees with the change.
i don't. i'm a geek who is refusing to play lawyer right now. it might
be a good idea to consult with one.
note, however, that the copyright assignment is to:
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, The PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California
which suggests that the Regents and "The PostgreSQL Global
Development Group" hold the rights, and so those are the only two
entities that would need to grant permission. i'm not sure what kind
of legal entity the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is,
though. it might end up meaning each individual, if it's not an
actual corporation. there's no substitute for an informed legal
opinion on this subject. is one available?
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Richard Welty wrote:
but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)
If you changed the wording of the BSD license in your distribution, did
you talk to Berkeley before doing this? What does your wording have?
--
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
In the last exciting episode, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) wrote:
I would hate to be the only license that OpenBSD doesn't like. :-)
I think you haven't conversed with Theo enough [shudder...]
You wouln't want him to prefer the GPL, would you :-).
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/internet.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #178. "If I have the hero cornered and am
about to finish him off and he says "Look out behind you!!" I will not
laugh and say "You don't expect me to fall for that old trick, do
you?" Instead I will take a step to the side and half turn. That way I
can still keep my weapon trained on the hero, I can scan the area
behind me, and if anything was heading for me it will now be heading
for him." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:56 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)
If you changed the wording of the BSD license in your distribution, did
you talk to Berkeley before doing this? What does your wording have?
the current wording in the OpenBSD source code is as follows. it was
last changed in July 1999, when the Regents dropped the old
3rd term (the advertising clause.)
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. 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.
* 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
[ mailing lists trimmed ]
Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net> writes:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:50:23 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
We are not changing the license text we inherited from Berkeley.
if you go to the trouble to talk to the IP lawyers for the Regents,
you may find that you can easily get permission to migrate the
license to the current "BSD License".
Even if we could get such permission from UCB, you are adopting an
extremely rosy view of what's involved in a Postgres license change.
Arguably we'd need to get signoff from every current and past
contributor as well. And there are other issues that you can read
about in the archives if you are interested.
The short answer is we have had this discussion before --- repeatedly
--- and we are not interested in having it again.regards, tom lane
Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:23:56 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
but you can consult with the attorneys for the Regents. they have
changed the license at times, and have passed those changes on
to other BSD licensed projects (e.g., when they removed the
advertising clause the advertising clause was also removed from
all the code in the OpenBSD distribution that was inherited from
the original BSD project.)If you changed the wording of the BSD license in your distribution, did
you talk to Berkeley before doing this? What does your wording have?the current wording in the OpenBSD source code is as follows. it was
last changed in July 1999, when the Regents dropped the old
3rd term (the advertising clause.)* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. 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.
* 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
OK, where did you get this wording? Is this something Berkeley released
as one of their versions of the BSD license.
--
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 19073On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:58:19 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
OK, where did you get this wording? Is this something Berkeley released
as one of their versions of the BSD license.
yes, i believe that it originally came from the Berkeley lawyers.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:49:47 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
The short answer is we have had this discussion before --- repeatedly --- and we are not interested in having it again.
ok, fine.
but now i'm going to ask an obnoxious question that occured
to me during the course of this discussion:
What is the actual legal standing of "The PostgreSQL Global
Development Group". is it some sort of actual corporate entity?
if it isn't, then it'd be fairly easily to steal the copyright for all
the code that isn't copyright by Berkeley, simply by creating
a corporation with that name. yes, you could probably beat
it in court, but you'd have to spend the money.
i'd suggest that you need to either 1) incorporate (create
an LLC or an S Corporation or something) or 2) attribute
the copyright to something that actually exists in the
eyes of the law.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:58:19 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
OK, where did you get this wording? Is this something Berkeley released
as one of their versions of the BSD license.yes, i believe that it originally came from the Berkeley lawyers.
I know we have updated our license in the past, particularly to remove
the advertizing clause. I think we grabbed FreeBSD's version. I don't
think we are inclined to update our wording unless there is a
significant reason to do so, and I don't think one project thinking it
is possibly confusing is enough, and of course, as you know, five
lawyers will give five different opinions.
--
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 19073On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:33:37 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
I know we have updated our license in the past, particularly to remove
the advertizing clause. I think we grabbed FreeBSD's version. I don't
think we are inclined to update our wording unless there is a
significant reason to do so, and I don't think one project thinking it
is possibly confusing is enough, and of course, as you know, five
lawyers will give five different opinions.
right, but how many lawyers have actually been consulted on this?
i would agree that the OpenBSD interpretation is pretty severe,
but in light of the current legal shenanigans with respect to some
other open source projects, i think there is some merit to the
severity.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:33:37 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
I know we have updated our license in the past, particularly to remove
the advertizing clause. I think we grabbed FreeBSD's version. I don't
think we are inclined to update our wording unless there is a
significant reason to do so, and I don't think one project thinking it
is possibly confusing is enough, and of course, as you know, five
lawyers will give five different opinions.right, but how many lawyers have actually been consulted on this?
i would agree that the OpenBSD interpretation is pretty severe,
but in light of the current legal shenanigans with respect to some
other open source projects, i think there is some merit to the
severity.
Well, certainly the Berkeley lawyers were consulted for the original
wording, and probably more lawyers than we are going to muster.
Frankly, we probably have many more severe potential legal issues than
this, and probably most open source does.
--
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 19073Richard Welty wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:33:37 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
I know we have updated our license in the past, particularly to remove
the advertizing clause. I think we grabbed FreeBSD's version. I don't
think we are inclined to update our wording unless there is a
significant reason to do so, and I don't think one project thinking it
is possibly confusing is enough, and of course, as you know, five
lawyers will give five different opinions.right, but how many lawyers have actually been consulted on this?
i would agree that the OpenBSD interpretation is pretty severe,
but in light of the current legal shenanigans with respect to some
other open source projects, i think there is some merit to the
severity.
Actually, based on the current software climate, it seems all software
(commercial and open source) has huge potential litigation
possibilities.
--
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 19073On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:19:51 -0500 (EST) Richard Welty <rwelty@averillpark.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:33:37 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
I know we have updated our license in the past, particularly to remove
the advertizing clause. I think we grabbed FreeBSD's version. I don't
think we are inclined to update our wording unless there is a
significant reason to do so, and I don't think one project thinking it
is possibly confusing is enough, and of course, as you know, five
lawyers will give five different opinions.
right, but how many lawyers have actually been consulted on this?
i would agree that the OpenBSD interpretation is pretty severe,
but in light of the current legal shenanigans with respect to some
other open source projects, i think there is some merit to the
severity.
actually, now that i think about it, tom is well paced at his current
day job to get a legal opinion from an IP lawyer. they certainly
have IP lawyers on retainer if not on staff, and they certainly have
an interest in the licensing state of PostgreSQL.
i think that this would be a good legal opinion to have.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
[sNip]
Frankly, we probably have many more severe potential legal issues than
this, and probably most open source does.
Are there any issues in particular you are concerned or wondering
about?
--
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.
"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."
My personal interpretation isn't very ambiguous at all. If the license
were interpreted to require that you could not charge to provide someone
with a copy of postgres, that would imply that you aren't allowed to
have a written agreement with them either. That just doesn't make sense
to me.
I can see how a lawyer might tell someone to play it safe though. Also,
I suppose in any disagreement over the ambiguity of a text, the side
perceiving ambiguities is bound to win ;)
regards,
jeff davis
