PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

alavoor wrote:

Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.

The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
but by law it is required to include it forever with
pgsql.

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.

Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your
views.

Not in this life time, but thanks for adding your 2 bits ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, alavoor wrote:

mlw wrote:

alavoor wrote:

Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.

The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
but by law it is required to include it forever with
pgsql.

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.

Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your
views.

At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code. However all future
submitters would have to agree to GPL for their new code.

However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
do people think of this summary:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian wrote:

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

You are a talented man with a knack for simplifying the imponderables. ;-)

mlw wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

^^^^^^^^^^^

It is actually spelled "foreseeable".

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.

I doubt this is true at all. We could possibly specify GPL for *new*
code (eg, whole new source files) that we add to the tree, but we can't
unilaterally relicense the existing code. And can you usefully specify
a GPL license for individual patches added to a basically-BSD source file?
Isn't going to work.

In any case, the discussion has been had many times before and the
answer is not going to change. I like your idea of putting something in
the FAQ to try to stave off future queries. The wording you have is
okay as far as it goes, but I'd like to see it made perfectly crystal
clear that we *have* considered GPL and we are *not* interested in
hearing any more "why don't you switch to GPL" proposals. Deleting the
"currently" would be a start.

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

regards, tom lane

[2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:

| At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in

| However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
| would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
| do people think of this summary:

| The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
| (proprietary) restrictions.

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war.

Good point.

I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

regards, tom lane

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

Man, this text is getting longer. :-(

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Now, I don't want to do that, but I do think it is doable.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

...

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

I agree that this is possible. I'd prefer not making a statement in the
FAQ regarding license justifications/alternatives at this time, because
it could be a long discussion with little gain.

Please note the source of this most recent unsolicited suggestion with
unsubstantiated reasoning and we will conclude that we have already
spent too much time on the subject for this go 'round. imho of course ;)

- Thomas

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

regards, tom lane

[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:

| Perhaps something like this:
|
| The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
| since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
| Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
| GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
| concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
| contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
| many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
| would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
| continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
| restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
| BSD license for the foreseeable future.

+1

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:04:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

Truth is useful, even if unpleasant.

Dave, happy with BSD.

--
David Terrell | "the only part about medicinal marijuana that
Prime Minister, Nebcorp | bothers me is that, when I started chemo, all of
dbt@meat.net | my children and grandchildren told me they could
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | get some for me if I needed it." -mrw's grandfather

Brent Verner wrote:

[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:

| Perhaps something like this:
|
| The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
| since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
| Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
| GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
| concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
| contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
| many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
| would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
| continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
| restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
| BSD license for the foreseeable future.

+1

Yep, lets go with this version.

+ Justin

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such

This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:

The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
wish to impose upon our users and developers.

Why just "commercial entities"?

Matthew.

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
we don't want GPL.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Matthew Kirkwood wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such

This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:

The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
wish to impose upon our users and developers.

Why just "commercial entities"?

Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more
detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
possibility for problems.

One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current
license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
I don't want to do it, but there it is.

An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of
"current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That
last sentence could also be removed completely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
you wish" ...

I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote: