Mark Woodward wrote:
> I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
> representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
> has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
> "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
> distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
> PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
> relational system, etc. etc.

The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
it under the terms spelled out in the license.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Mark Woodward wrote:
> > I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
> > representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
> > has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
> > "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
> > distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
> > PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
> > relational system, etc. etc.
>
> The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
> relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
> someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
> it under the terms spelled out in the license.

Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a
closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the
existing 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 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

> Mark Woodward wrote:
>> I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
>> representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
>> has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
>> "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
>> distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
>> PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
>> relational system, etc. etc.
>
> The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
> relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
> someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
> it under the terms spelled out in the license.

This not about the "license" per se'. This is about the legal rights of
the copyright holder. The documentation claims:

PostgreSQL 8.0.1 Documentation
The PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group

As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," has the
right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For PHP to
sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered in writing.
Verbal agreements are not valid.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Mark Woodward wrote:
>> > I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
>> > representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
>> > has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
>> > "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
>> > distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
>> > PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
>> > relational system, etc. etc.
>>
>> The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
>> relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
>> someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
>> it under the terms spelled out in the license.
>
> Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a
> closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the
> existing BSD license?

The BSD license requires that original copyright owner maintain ownership
of copyright. The PHP guys want the works to be under PHP ownership.
Specifically:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PostgreSQL Database Management System
(formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)

Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2005, The PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California

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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

Mark Woodward wrote:
> As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group,"
> has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For
> PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered
> in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid.

The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so
it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright
holders can do that.

What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept
contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will
not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are
derived from PostgreSQL software.

(Note that I am not opposed to someone else copying PostgreSQL software;
I wouldn't be in this project otherwise. I'm just explaining the
situation.)

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

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

> Mark Woodward wrote:
>> As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group,"
>> has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For
>> PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered
>> in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid.
>
> The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so
> it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright
> holders can do that.

Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
copyright.

IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.

>
> What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept
> contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will
> not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are
> derived from PostgreSQL software.

Since the document is
"Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group"

"The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

"Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
> copyright.

> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.

Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.

In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)

> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.

No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
>> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however,
>> that
>> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
>> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
>> copyright.
>
>> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
>
> Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
> It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
> clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
> to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
> go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
> committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.
>
> In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
> just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
> the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
> Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)

What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
put it in the public domain like SQLite?

>
>> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be,
>> whatever
>> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
>
> No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
> behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.

Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create a
paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group,"
and claim ownership.






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

"Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
>> just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
>> the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
>> Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)

> What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
> put it in the public domain like SQLite?

We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in practice
there's hardly any difference anyway.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Mark Woodward wrote:
> Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create
> a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment
> Group," and claim ownership.

No, the point is that we want to stick at least *some* copyright notice
in the code, so people are advised that the code is copyrighted and
they are given an indication about whom they might contact about it.

According to international treaties, copyright to anything is in fact
owned by whoever created it (or their employer), no matter what the
copyright notice, if any, says. The copyright notice is only a service
to, let's call them honest people, who might want to contact the author
before using code they found. "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group"
serves just fine as a point of contact.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings