Re: new food for the contrib/ directory

Hi Bruce,

Haven't looked at the code, but there's no license with it.

Andreas, are you cool with having the same License as PostgreSQL for it
(BSD license)?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can someone comment on this? I can't decide.

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

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Hello,

i have written a module for logging changes on a table (without knowing
the exact column names).
Dont know where to put it, but its ready for use in the contrib directory.

Its available at: http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz (3k)

Would be nice, if this can be added.

Best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
(Ferenc Mantfeld)

--
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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

--
"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

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Haven't looked at the code, but there's no license with it.

Andreas, are you cool with having the same License as PostgreSQL for it
(BSD license)?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can someone comment on this? I can't decide.

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

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Hello,

i have written a module for logging changes on a table (without knowing
the exact column names).
Dont know where to put it, but its ready for use in the contrib directory.

Its available at: http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz (3k)

Would be nice, if this can be added.

Best regards

Hello,

uhm, good point. I thought i missed something ;-)

This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

I have updated the readme and replaced the archive with a new version.

Thanks and best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

Hi Bruce,

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Haven't looked at the code, but there's no license with it.

Andreas, are you cool with having the same License as PostgreSQL for it
(BSD license)?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can someone comment on this? I can't decide.

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

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Hello,

i have written a module for logging changes on a table (without knowing
the exact column names).
Dont know where to put it, but its ready for use in the contrib directory.

Its available at: http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz (3k)

Would be nice, if this can be added.

Best regards

Hello,

uhm, good point. I thought i missed something ;-)

This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

I have updated the readme and replaced the archive with a new version.

Thanks and best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.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

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

:-)

Hmm, there's enough GPL'ed stuff in contrib/ ;-)

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

first comment :

* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?

second comment :

* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
software like PostgreSQL. For example :

* Contribution back to the main tree more easy if redistribution.
(like HP and Samba team are doing, copyright holder remains samba team)

* More easy to get a RF (Royalty Free) license from a patent
owner. (this is guarantee for him that it will not go back to
proprietary software where it's not a RF license) (like the
UB-Trees)

* A possible bigger audience.

Dual licensing is also an alternative but could be a real mess.

It's just idea.

alx

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Haven't looked at the code, but there's no license with it.

Andreas, are you cool with having the same License as PostgreSQL for it
(BSD license)?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Can someone comment on this? I can't decide.

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

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Hello,

i have written a module for logging changes on a table (without knowing
the exact column names).
Dont know where to put it, but its ready for use in the contrib directory.

Its available at: http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz (3k)

Would be nice, if this can be added.

Best regards

Hello,

uhm, good point. I thought i missed something ;-)

This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.

I have updated the readme and replaced the archive with a new version.

Thanks and best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com
http://www.conostix.com/

Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:

Justin Clift wrote:

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

Hmm, there's enough GPL'ed stuff in contrib/ ;-)

Indeed, the core committee recently agreed that we should try to ensure
that the whole distribution is under the same BSD license. I have a
TODO item to contact the authors of the existing GPL'd contrib modules,
and if possible get them to agree to relicense. If not, those modules
will be removed from contrib.

There are other possible homes for contrib modules whose authors
strongly prefer GPL. For example, Red Hat's add-ons for Postgres will
be GPL (per corporate policy), and I expect that they'd be willing to
host contrib modules. But the core distribution will be straight BSD
to avoid license confusion.

regards, tom lane

first comment :

* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?

second comment :

* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
software like PostgreSQL. For example :

* Contribution back to the main tree more easy if redistribution.
(like HP and Samba team are doing, copyright holder remains samba team)

* More easy to get a RF (Royalty Free) license from a patent
owner. (this is guarantee for him that it will not go back to
proprietary software where it's not a RF license) (like the
UB-Trees)

* A possible bigger audience.

Dual licensing is also an alternative but could be a real mess.

It's just idea.

alx

--
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com
http://www.conostix.com/

Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:

first comment :

* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?

Doesn't really change anything.

second comment :

* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
software like PostgreSQL. For example :

Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.

-Doug
--
Doug McNaught Wireboard Industries http://www.wireboard.com/

Custom software development, systems and network consulting.
Java PostgreSQL Enhydra Python Zope Perl Apache Linux BSD...

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

Yes, our current policy is to add GPL to /contrib only when we have
little choice and the module is important. I am not sure if the module
is even appropriate for /contrib.

-- 
  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 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:

Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:

first comment :

* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?

Doesn't really change anything.

second comment :

* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
software like PostgreSQL. For example :

Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.

I love that type of respond ;-)

Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
is like that..."

I have also read that :
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php

My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some
specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type
license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue.

Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ?

Thanks a lot for the excellent software.

alx

-Doug

--
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com
http://www.conostix.com/

Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:

Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.

I love that type of respond ;-)

Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
is like that..."

I have also read that :
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php

My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some
specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type
license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue.

Yes, GPL has advantages, but it does prevent non-source distributions.
You can say that is not a problem, but not everyone agrees.

Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ?

No. The discussion thread was painful enough. :-)

-- 
  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

Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:

* I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
software like PostgreSQL.

Every month or two a newbie pops up and asks us why Postgres isn't GPL.
The short answer is that we like the BSD license and that's how Berkeley
released it originally. We have no interest in changing it even if we
could (which we can't).

If you want a longer answer, consult the mailing list archives; there
have been numerous extended threads on this topic. Most of us are
pretty tired of it by now :-(

The question of whether to accept GPL'd contrib modules is less
clear-cut (obviously, since it's been done in the past). But we've
concluded that it just muddies the water to have GPL'd code in the
distribution. Contrib authors who really prefer GPL have other avenues
to distribute their code.

regards, tom lane

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when adulau@conostix.com (Alexandre Dulaunoy) would write:

On 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:

Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:

first comment :

* a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?

Doesn't really change anything.

second comment :

I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General
Public License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big
project and software like PostgreSQL. For example :

Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.

I love that type of respond ;-)

Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
is like that..."

X-Mailer: mh-e 6.1; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.4

Different people consider there to be different reasons for the
BSD-style license to be preferable.

Discussion of the matter tends to start up flame wars, and basically
wastes peoples' time.

Those two factors are actually sufficient all by themselves to suggest
that "Because the developers prefer it" is a quite sufficient
response.

- There are likely some people that dislike the GPL because RMS wrote
it; having a discussion about that guarantees a flame war.

- There are likely some people who consider the somewhat "viral"
provisions of the GPL to be a Bad Thing; having a discussion about
that guarantees a flame war.

- There are likely people who prefer the notion that they can, if they
need to, integrate PostgreSQL with their own other code, and not
have any need to conform to the requirements of the GPL.

- There are likely people who prefer not to need to conform to the
requirements of the GPL.

All of these are eminently "flameworthy" topics where different people
legitimately have different positions on their merits. Holding a
discussion guarantees leaping into one or another of the "flames," or
perhaps others I've not thought to mention.

The simplest answer _definitely_ is to say "See the FAQ; it says as
much as needs to be said."

If you want to contribute code to a GPLed database system, you are
entirely free to do so; options include:
- MySQL (maybe, sorta)
- SAP-DB
- GNU SQL
- Aubit 4GL
- McKoi SQL
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sgml.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #209. "I will not, under any circumstances,
marry a woman I know to be a faithless, conniving, back-stabbing witch
simply because I am absolutely desperate to perpetuate my family
line. Of course, we can still date." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/&gt;

...

Thanks a lot for the excellent software.

My personal view is that one might consider using the same BSD license
as PostgreSQL itself as a gesture of appreciation for the software you
are using. Contribute or not, it is your choice. But if you are
benefiting from the software (and lots of folks are) then why not take
the "big risk" of contributing back with a similar license?

Regards.

- Thomas

Tom Lane wrote:

Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:

Justin Clift wrote:

Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?

My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
PostgreSQL being BSD based.

Hmm, there's enough GPL'ed stuff in contrib/ ;-)

Indeed, the core committee recently agreed that we should try to ensure
that the whole distribution is under the same BSD license. I have a
TODO item to contact the authors of the existing GPL'd contrib modules,
and if possible get them to agree to relicense. If not, those modules
will be removed from contrib.

There are other possible homes for contrib modules whose authors
strongly prefer GPL. For example, Red Hat's add-ons for Postgres will
be GPL (per corporate policy), and I expect that they'd be willing to
host contrib modules. But the core distribution will be straight BSD
to avoid license confusion.

I have to excuse myself, because i think, i did a mistake.
Yes, my first intention was to make it GPL, but i do not stick to it.

On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
licence.
I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me,
whats in this case the right (or left) license?

Best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:

On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
licence.
I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me,
whats in this case the right (or left) license?

Since it was contributed to become part of the Postgres distribution,
we assume the author's intent was to license it under the Postgres
distribution license --- ie, BSD.

regards, tom lane

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:

Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
is like that..."

You would have to ask the Regents of the University of California at
Berkeley, not us. You would also have to ask them for permission to
change the licensing for the parts of Posgres that they contributed;
since they own the copyright, nobody else, not even the Postgresql
project, can change the licensing.

It might be good to make this a bit more clear in the FAQ. As well, you
might wish to add some information in light of the following:

As a NetBSD developer, I'd like to point out that the experience of the
NetBSD project has been that having multiple licenses in a system is
very expensive and makes releases a nightmare, if you're really going
to do it "right." Just finding all of the licenses in the system is an
arduous and time-consuming job. People using Posgres in many commerical
situations will save real dollars if everything is under one license.

Note also that one of the big problems we experienced was with clause
three of BSD-style licenses (the attribution clause). If you change the
name in clause three, you have a different license, and you may have
problems. That was the biggest factor contributing to massive license
proliferation in the NetBSD tree. Personally, I think clause three is
best left out alltogether, though I doubt it's changable for files still
including Berkeley source.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

Tom Lane wrote:

Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:

On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
licence.
I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me,
whats in this case the right (or left) license?

Since it was contributed to become part of the Postgres distribution,
we assume the author's intent was to license it under the Postgres
distribution license --- ie, BSD.

Ok, i have changed the license part in the readme to PostgreSQL (BSD)
license
and published a new archive.

http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz

Hope, this cleans some open questions.

Best regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum

Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:

Note also that one of the big problems we experienced was with clause
three of BSD-style licenses (the attribution clause).

Fortunately, Berkeley had already stopped using the advertising clause
when they tossed Postgres over the fence. Our version does not have
it (see ~/COPYRIGHT).

regards, tom lane

Andreas Scherbaum wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:

On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
licence.
I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me,
whats in this case the right (or left) license?

Since it was contributed to become part of the Postgres distribution,
we assume the author's intent was to license it under the Postgres
distribution license --- ie, BSD.

Ok, i have changed the license part in the readme to PostgreSQL (BSD)
license
and published a new archive.

http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/table_log.tar.gz

OK, now that the license issue is cleared up, I need someone to
comment on its appropriateness for /contrib.

-- 
  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

Hello,

there's a new archive available with a bugfix for handling null values.
Thanks to Steve Head for reporting this.

http://ads.ufp.de/projects/Pg/

Regards

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum