Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PostgreSQL 9.3 Props Up New Database Features

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic PostgreSQL 9.3 Props Up New Database Features

    PostgreSQL 9.3 Props Up New Database Features

    Phoronix: PostgreSQL 9.3 Props Up New Database Features

    The first beta of the PostgreSQL 9.3 open-source database software is available. This beta release is feature-complete for PostgreSQL 9.3 with several major features...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM3MDg

  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    At least the lawyer could run;
    $ diff license.txt ~/Licenses/mit.txt
    or
    $ md5sum license.txt
    $ md5sum ~/Licenses/mit.txt
    And check if the checksums match.
    Then that saves him a lot of trouble of having to read the licenses.
    I am not sure if you ever worked with a lawyer before. They don't run checksums on the licenses.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    If you are working for a commercial organization with a licensing approval policy, you need to get every new component vetted anyway and cannot rely on what the upstream project choses to label the license because many projects don't get it right.
    At least the lawyer could run;
    $ diff license.txt ~/Licenses/mit.txt
    or
    $ md5sum license.txt
    $ md5sum ~/Licenses/mit.txt
    And check if the checksums match.
    Then that saves him a lot of trouble of having to read the licenses.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    But since the header doesn't say MIT license, anyone reading it wouldn't know its the MIT license, so they would have to send it to the company lawyer for review and he would have to waste his time reading through it.
    If you are working for a commercial organization with a licensing approval policy, you need to get every new component vetted anyway and cannot rely on what the upstream project choses to label the license because many projects don't get it right.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Actual vanity licenses that are complex may have that problem but postgres license is just one of many MIT variants that are out there. Since MIT is a very simple license, I really doubt anyone is going to be confused by it.
    But since the header doesn't say MIT license, anyone reading it wouldn't know its the MIT license, so they would have to send it to the company lawyer for review and he would have to waste his time reading through it.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    I see.
    I still think that upstreams should refer to it as BSD or MIT license.

    This just causes confusing for packages and for people at companies who have to read these license. Vanity licenses just create more work and higher Total Cost of Ownership.
    Actual vanity licenses that are complex may have that problem but postgres license is just one of many MIT variants that are out there. Since MIT is a very simple license, I really doubt anyone is going to be confused by it.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    What we colloquolially refer to BSD or MIT license is literally hundreds of minor variants of the same license. A typical distribution like Fedora basically puts them all in the same bucket unless there are functional differences.
    I see.
    I still think that upstreams should refer to it as BSD or MIT license.

    This just causes confusing for packages and for people at companies who have to read these license. Vanity licenses just create more work and higher Total Cost of Ownership.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    It is a vanity license.
    If not, upstream should call it BSD or MIT license.

    The mailing list, refers to the "endorse or promote products derived from the software
    without specific prior written permission" clause in the 3-clause BSD license not being in the Postgres License as to reason why it is different from the BSD license, but the 2-clause BSD license does not contain that clause either.
    What we colloquolially refer to BSD or MIT license is literally hundreds of minor variants of the same license. A typical distribution like Fedora basically puts them all in the same bucket unless there are functional differences.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

    Not a vanity license at all. Upstream believes it is a variant of BSD but Fedora tags it as a MIT variant but in any case, the rights granted is just about the same.

    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-August/msg00031.html

    It is a vanity license.
    If not, upstream should call it BSD or MIT license.

    The mailing list, refers to the "endorse or promote products derived from the software
    without specific prior written permission" clause in the 3-clause BSD license not being in the Postgres License as to reason why it is different from the BSD license, but the 2-clause BSD license does not contain that clause either.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Never tried Postgresql but it seems really interesting with the JSON support.
    Anyone tried out the JSON datatype, is it cool?

    Its a shame that Postgresql have a vanity license instead of a established standard free open source software license though.
    http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/

    Not a vanity license at all. Upstream believes it is a variant of BSD but Fedora tags it as a MIT variant but in any case, the rights granted is just about the same.

    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-August/msg00031.html

    Last edited by RahulSundaram; 05-13-2013, 04:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X