Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-20 Thread Josh Berkus
On 05/18/2010 01:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are marked as BSD licence but then the project files don't contain any mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly marked Copyright of people or

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-20 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 05/20/2010 01:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 05/18/2010 01:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are marked as BSD licence but then the project files don't contain any mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-20 Thread Josh Berkus
huh? that does not make any sense at all - the licence the submitter chooses _IS_ displayed on the main overview page of the project (see for example: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgbouncer/). That doesn't happen automatically -- after acceptance, the project owner needs to select a license

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On Thu, May 20, 2010 3:06 pm, Josh Berkus wrote: huh? that does not make any sense at all - the licence the submitter chooses _IS_ displayed on the main overview page of the project (see for example: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgbouncer/). That doesn't happen automatically -- after

[HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Simon Riggs
I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are marked as BSD licence but then the project files don't contain any mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly marked Copyright of people or organizations. For example, pg_batch is clearly marked

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Dave Page
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are marked as BSD licence but then the project files don't contain any mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly marked

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote: For example, pg_batch is clearly marked BSD licence, yet the docs and many of the files are marked Copyright (c) 2010, NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION. Don't mix up copyright and licence. They are not the same thing at all.

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Dave Page
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote: For example, pg_batch is clearly marked BSD licence, yet the docs and many of the files are marked Copyright (c) 2010, NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION.

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:33 +0100, Dave Page wrote: No - pgFoundry projects are licenced and copyright-attributed as their authors see fit (as long as it's an open source licence of course). Yes, are they open source licences? All the options on pgFoundry are, yes. The PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open source licence must also be unclear. I would suggest you, or anyone else who notices, open bugs on any packages you want to use for which you find

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Dave Page
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Dave, this is important and so this thread must have a clear resolution, so we must stick to a single point and be clear about our logic and our statements. OK. I thought you were talking about copyright and licences

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 06:32 -0400, Greg Stark wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open source licence must also be unclear. I would suggest you, or anyone else who notices, open

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Peter Geoghegan
That is the case for *anything*. We could change the PostgreSQL licence if we wanted, but it would take a huge amount of effort and approval of every contributor ever whose work could be considered an artistic contribution. I doubt it. Do you think that every single contributor is

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Simon Riggs wrote: That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to trust PgFoundry. pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The projects there are the responsibility of their individual

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 05/18/2010 07:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to trust PgFoundry. pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The projects

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:32 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to trust PgFoundry. pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The

Re: [HACKERS] Clarifications of licences on pgfoundry

2010-05-18 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
On 05/18/2010 09:22 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:32 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to trust PgFoundry. pgFoundry is a