Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 14:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Neil Conway asked me if we need a copyright notice to cover the code I borrowed from FreeBSD in initdb.c. I wasn't sure, but in case we do here is a patch to include it. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the FreeBSD code is under the 3 clause

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Rod Taylor wrote: On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 14:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Neil Conway asked me if we need a copyright notice to cover the code I borrowed from FreeBSD in initdb.c. I wasn't sure, but in case we do here is a patch to include it. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the FreeBSD code is

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: I have grabbed code from NetBSD before, and I just mention that fact at the top of the file. There is no need to repeat their license as it is the same as our license. I just added the last line: * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2003, PostgreSQL Global Development Group *

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Neil Conway
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have grabbed code from NetBSD before, and I just mention that fact at the top of the file. There is no need to repeat their license as it is the same as our license. src/port/qsort.c is wrong, then: (a) it includes the full NetBSD copyright/warranty

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Yes, in cases where I take the entire file unchanged, I don't change the copyright, but I think we can take the copyright of the project rather than those of the individual files. --- Neil Conway wrote: Bruce Momjian

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Neil Conway
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't change the copyright, but I think we can take the copyright of the project rather than those of the individual files. So can we remove the offending license clauses, then? Also, it's worth noting that the license in 'COPYRIGHT' is not exactly the

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
I think there was an updated BSD license approved by Berkeley that we are using. If we took the file unchanged, I would not remove the copyright because it is the file _unchanged_, no? --- Neil Conway wrote: Bruce Momjian

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Manfred Spraul
Neil Conway wrote: A quick grep of the source tree indicates that the following files claim to be covered by the 4 clause BSD license: $ grep -rlI 'This product includes software developed' * contrib/mysql/my2pg.pl contrib/pgcrypto/README.pgcrypto contrib/pgcrypto/blf.c You must be careful

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Neil Conway
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think there was an updated BSD license approved by Berkeley that we are using. I think this is an area where we need a higher degree of certainty than that. If we took the file unchanged, I would not remove the copyright because it is the file

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Neil Conway wrote: To summarize, my understanding is that there are two problems: (1) Some of the files in the main source tree are 4 clause BSD. Since PostgreSQL is derived from these files, we fall under its licensing restrictions, namely the advertising clause. I

Re: [PATCHES] initdb copyright notice

2003-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think there was an updated BSD license approved by Berkeley that we are using. I think this is an area where we need a higher degree of certainty than that. I think our BSD license version came from FreeBSD. -- Bruce