Re: [HACKERS] Copyright

At 12:53 PM 1/29/00 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>
>> Ah, corporate assets? What if someone bought out PostgreSQL, Inc., for
>> a huge sum of money. They'd get control of anything PostgreSQL, Inc.
>> has control over. One can't buy out a non-profit organization.
>
>I am worried about that too. Maybe we need an organization something
>like the Apache Software Foundation to hold the copyright.

A couple of points (as an outsider)...

I have no doubt that the organization of PG, Inc and the copyright
statements which reflect that are done in good faith.

If the distribution license is explicit and "loose", the copyright
issue shouldn't really matter much, i.e. the distribution terms
under the existing license are such that you can do whatever you
want to the code including productize it.

These terms supercede copyright in the sense that the copyright
says "we assert ownership", and having said that, the license
says "we owners say that you can do what you want".

So...maybe the concerns shouldn't be focused so much on the
copyright issue as in doing whatever's necessary to make sure
that the license terms are perpetuated?

The BSD license under which it is distributed would seem to
do that...each distribution today goes out under that, unless
that's changed which I don't think it has.

The questions about "What happens when the postgres, inc
owner(s) dies?" is valid, and maybe some sort of protection
can be built up that ensures that postgres is distributed
under the same loose license it is today. Obviously the
U can make that claim for most of the code anyway, but
PG development is also an international phenomena so it
isn't clear how strong that claim is.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.