Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it is common.  I didn't add that part, so if 
> > you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction.  New text:
> > 
> > PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a
> patch
> > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the
> PostgreSQL
> > Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute
> your
> > patch under the BSD license.  If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it
> > will be rejected.
> 
> I would remove the last sentence, since it puts the responsibility back
> on the group (namely to actively reject).

Done.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-07 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD

> I don't think it is common.  I didn't add that part, so if 
> you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction.  New text:
> 
> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a
patch
> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the
PostgreSQL
> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute
your
> patch under the BSD license.  If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it
> will be rejected.

I would remove the last sentence, since it puts the responsibility back
on the group (namely to actively reject).

Andreas

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
 Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
 the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
 zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
 made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
 first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
>>> Do you actually believe people read those?
>> Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
>> *you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.
>>
> 
> As long as we're pretending that were doing this right, we ought to add the 
> notice as part of the list signup message that is sent out to anyone how 
> signs up to the list. 

Yes I mentioned that up thread :)

Joshua D. Drake




-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Robert Treat
On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
> >> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
> >> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
> >> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
> >> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
> >
> > Do you actually believe people read those?
>
> Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
> *you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.
>

As long as we're pretending that were doing this right, we ought to add the 
notice as part of the list signup message that is sent out to anyone how 
signs up to the list. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
>> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
>> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
>> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
>> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
>> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.
> 
> Do you actually believe people read those?

Of course not, but that isn't the point. The point is, *we told you so*,
*you chose not to listen* and here it is documented.

Joshua D. Drake




-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
> the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
> zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
> made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
> first email they get from the list software) it told them again.

Do you actually believe people read those?

-- 
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> How frequently is this actually a problem?
 Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
 legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
>>> Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
>>> about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.
>> The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...
> 
> The issue is that people with those signatures don't think they are
> submitting under a non-BSD license.  I thought you were saying we need
> to address that directly.

Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
first email they get from the list software) it told them again.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake





-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
   subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
   message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>  I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>  non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> >>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
> >> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
> >> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
> > 
> > Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
> > about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.
> 
> The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...

The issue is that people with those signatures don't think they are
submitting under a non-BSD license.  I thought you were saying we need
to address that directly.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
 I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
 non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
>> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
>> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
> 
> Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
> about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.

The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...

Joshua D. Drake



-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
> 
> I don't think it is common.  I didn't add that part, so if you also
> think it is rare, I will remove that distinction.  New text:
> 
> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> patch under the BSD license.  If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it
> will be rejected.

This is good, and it is really important that we add this to the signup
pages and welcome pages for -hackers and -patches.

Joshua D. Drake




-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> >> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> > 
> > How frequently is this actually a problem?
> 
> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.

Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> 
> How frequently is this actually a problem?

Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.

Joshua D. Drake




-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
   choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
   match


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> > non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> 
> How frequently is this actually a problem?

I don't think it is common.  I didn't add that part, so if you also
think it is rare, I will remove that distinction.  New text:

PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
patch under the BSD license.  If the patch is not BSD-licensed, it
will be rejected.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:

How frequently is this actually a problem?

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

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
   choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
   match


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> >>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> >>>
> >>> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> >>> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> >>> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> >>> patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
> >>> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> >>> email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> >>> please do not post the patch.
> >> How about something simpler:
> >>
> >> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
> >> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
> >> ignored.
> > 
> > No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
> > much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
> > with a BSD license.
> 
> Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my 
> clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).
> 
> In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no 
> desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two 
> sentences. We could adjust a bit though:
> 
> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept 
> patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be 
> rejected.
> 
> Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" 
> to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.

Agreed we want simple wording.  The existing complexity is caused by
trying to explain that if basing a patch on a BSD-compatibile license,
we need to know about it.  Your wording doesn't have that distinction. 
Perhaps the distinction isn't important.  I didn't write that particular
part of the FAQ myself.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:

PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
please do not post the patch.

How about something simpler:

PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
ignored.


No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
with a BSD license.


Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my 
clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).


In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no 
desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two 
sentences. We could adjust a bit though:


PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept 
patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be 
rejected.


Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" 
to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.


Thoughts?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

   http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> > non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> > 
> > PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> > to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> > Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> > patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
> > a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> > email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> > please do not post the patch.
> 
> How about something simpler:
> 
> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
> ignored.

No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
with a BSD license.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
   subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
   message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [HACKERS] Patch license update to developer's FAQ

2007-03-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
> 
> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
> email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
> please do not post the patch.

How about something simpler:

PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
ignored.





-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
   subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
   message can get through to the mailing list cleanly