Re: Re: [GENERAL] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> > that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> > "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> > "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
> > consider that an appendum/extension of what is already stated ...
> >
> > Is the following more palatable to those of us that aren't US citizens?
> >
> > The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
> >
> > "Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> > the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
> > non-exclusive, worldwide permission, without charge, to use, copy, further
> > modify and distribute the same under the terms of this license."
> >
> > Quite frankly, all I'm reading into this paragraph is that once committed,
> > Jan (as a recent example) couldn't come along and pull out all his TOAST
> > changes ... could you imagine the hell that would wreak were he (or anyone
> > else) were to pull crucial changes after others have built upon it?
>
>     The  new  license  should clearly make it impossible to later
>     pull out things again. To stay with me as example, what would
>     happen  if  I  take out PL/pgSQL, FOREIGN KEY (not all mine I
>     know), the fixes to the rewriter and so on.  They  all  where
>     contributed  under  the  old  license,  so  I  still hold the
>     copyright on 'em - don't I.  Can a  new  license  change  the
>     legal state of previous contributions? I don't think so. What
>     do we have to do to reversely apply this  "irrevocable"  term
>     to all so far done contributions?
>
>     And  some  words  to  all the people who think GPL is better.
>     IMHO it is a kind of Open Source Fashism. Forcing  everything
>     that  uses  a  little  snippet  of  open  code to be open too
>     doesn't have anything to do with free software.  There are  a
>     couple  of  things Open Source can never offer. For example a
>     native  DB-link  interface  between  a  Postgres  DB  and   a
>     commercial  one  might require NDA to get internals. Surely a
>     useful thing that must be a closed source  product,  so  what
>     would it be good for to make it's development impossible?
>
>     If  someone  needs a feature and is willing to pay alot money
>     to get  it  right  now,  why  shouldn't  a  company  or  some
>     individual  grab it and implement the feature. At some point,
>     those will learn that it is a good idea to  contribute  these
>     things  to  the  free  source too, because they'll get rid of
>     most maintainence efford and gain that future development  on
>     our  side  doesn't collide with what they're responsible for.
>     It's so obvious to me  that  I  don't  need  a  license  that
>     enforces it from the very first second.

So you are in the "make no changes to existing license" camp?  Or just
against that one para above?

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org