In some email I received from Joby Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 Apr
2003
09:24:27 -0700, wrote:
> Curtis, you're misinterpreting the notice. You are free do use
> PostgreSQL for any purpose and without paying a fee to the University of
> California(s) or the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. The only
> requirement is that the copywright notices, etc appear in all copies.
Curtis,
Joby made it quite clear, the software is selable in closed form without showing
the actual modifications/changes that's been made to it. Consider Nokia and
their
firewalls based on BSD pre-pre-patched kernel, next is Borderware firewall, same
situation, you can sell it but you have to keep the license in there right?
Even MS have
derived code off BSD licensed products.
> <generalization level="gross">
> BSD-style licenses (PostgreSQL, Apache, Sendmail) provide the software
> without any encumbarances -- you can do anything with it.
> GPL style licenses (Linux, GNOME) requires that the software and all
> additions/expansions be released under the GPL.
See with GPL is a bit different, I know coders in big corporations that dont
use GPL products, because they are afraid, I personally don't stress myself
with anything similar but I think we have to be aware of the licenses and their
clauses..
That's why i personally prefer Berkeley license.
<snip>
Looking at GPLed code puts programmers at risk of lawsuits claiming that
anything similar to it which they later produce is derivative -- and
therefore must later be licensed under the GPL and given away for free.
</snip>
> You can "sell" both. The only difference is that if you modify a GPL
> licensed application you must release your modifications, while with a
> BSD license you can keep those proprietary.
> </generalization>
> BTW, MySQL is dual licensed. It is available via GPL and for a price
> under a private license.
If MySQL is under the GPL license, and if it's been used under it and changed
under it, we
have the right to see it, use it, whatsoever without paying a cent for it.
Basicaly the
idea is to keep the software free under any circumstances, where in this aspect
the
concept of Berkeley license is different.
I'm sorry for {re}repeating this again..
cheers,
-lk
--
Lou Kamenov AEYE R&D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD BGUG http://www.freebsd-bg.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Secureroot UK http://secureroot.org.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key Fingerprint - 936F F64A AD50 2D27 07E7 6629 F493 95AE A297 084A
One advantage of talking to yourself is that you know at least
somebody's listening. - Franklin P. Jones
> Curtis Maurand wrote:
> >
> > from the postgresql website:
> >
> > <quote>PostgreSQL Database Management System
> > (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)
> >
> > Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2002, 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.</quote>
> >
> >
> > that paragraph seems pretty clear to me. I didn't go to harvard law school
> > or
> > anything, but plain american english is plain enough. MySQL with Netware
> > is
> > a licensed product. It is not under the GPL. I suppose that you can argue
> > that Novell (or even RedHat) isn't increasing the price of their
> > distribution
> > based on the fact that PostgreSQL is included. I've also noticed that you
> > can download the RedHat Database from their website without charge. If
> > that's the case, I stand corrected. At any rate, they can't charge money
> > for
> > it and I'm sure they would have to provide documentation to attest to that
> > upon request from the copyright holders.
> >
> > Curtis
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2003 14:27, Joby Walker wrote:
> >
> >>Curtis Maurand wrote:
> >>
> >>>Novell can't distribute PostgreSQL as part of the Netware distribution.
> >>>That would be a violation of the BSD license. However, they've licensed
> >>>MySQL in such a way as to be able to include it with Netware. That leads
> >>>me to believe that MySQL would be the preferred SQL server for Netware.
> >>>
> >>>Curtis
> >>
> >>This is not correct. BSD-style licenses place no prohibition on the
> >>code being included into proprientary projects and then sold closed source.
> >>
> >>jbw
