I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension.
I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from
the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance,
the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on
PQtransactionStatus, etc.

I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :)

Cheers,

Chris

Search Discussions

  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 15, 2005 at 11:06 am

    I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension.
    I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from
    the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance,
    the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on
    PQtransactionStatus, etc.

    I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :)
    This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights
    assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any
    incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license?
  • Bruno Wolff III at Mar 15, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:08:48 -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
    I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension.
    I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from
    the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance,
    the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on
    PQtransactionStatus, etc.

    I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :)
    This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights
    assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any
    incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license?
    Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you
    can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold.
    If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under
    a license that may not be compatible with BSD.
  • Bruce Momjian at Mar 15, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Bruno Wolff III wrote:
    On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:08:48 -0500,
    Mark Woodward wrote:
    I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension.
    I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from
    the PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance,
    the fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on
    PQtransactionStatus, etc.

    I don't really see the point of me 'rephrasing' it all :)
    This raises an interesting point, the PHP guys want the copyrights
    assigned to the PHP project on their license, are there any
    incompatibilities between Postgres' and PHP's license?
    Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you
    can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold.
    If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under
    a license that may not be compatible with BSD.
    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.

    --
    Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
    pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
    + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
    + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
  • Bruno Wolff III at Mar 15, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:34:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.
    If that were true, than why not have the code public domain? Ismn't there
    credit information that is supposed to be kept?
  • Bruce Momjian at Mar 15, 2005 at 1:57 pm

    Bruno Wolff III wrote:
    On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:34:14 -0500,
    Bruce Momjian wrote:
    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.
    If that were true, than why not have the code public domain? Ismn't there
    credit information that is supposed to be kept?
    I am not sure we require any _credit_ given to use for use of our code.
    As I see it, our only limitation is don't sue us.

    --
    Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
    pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
    + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
    + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
  • Tom Lane at Mar 15, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Bruce Momjian writes:
    Bruno Wolff III wrote:
    Just because the licenses are compatible, doesn't necessarily mean you
    can safely sign over the copyrights for documentation that you don't hold.
    If PHP holds the copyright they can relicense the documentation later under
    a license that may not be compatible with BSD.
    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.
    The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on
    the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone.

    ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff
    that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good
    safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray
    areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just
    cut-and-pasted from community property.

    regards, tom lane
  • Christopher Kings-Lynne at Mar 16, 2005 at 5:32 am

    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.
    The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on
    the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone.

    ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff
    that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good
    safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray
    areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just
    cut-and-pasted from community property.
    Argh. Well here comes a copy and paste PHP docs patch with a some
    'rephrasings'... Since the PHP API to pgsql is identical to libpq's...

    Chris
  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 16, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    Uh, but that's what the BSD license allows --- relicensing as any other
    license, including commercial.
    The point remains that Chris, by himself, does not hold the copyright on
    the PG docs and therefore cannot assign it to anyone.

    ISTM the PHP guys are essentially saying that they will only take stuff
    that is clearly authored by the individual contributor. Which is a good
    safe position for them to take. They are trying to stay out of gray
    areas, and therefore they are not going to want docs that are just
    cut-and-pasted from community property.
    Argh. Well here comes a copy and paste PHP docs patch with a some
    'rephrasings'... Since the PHP API to pgsql is identical to libpq's...
    Technically, that is still a derived work.

    I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
    representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just has
    to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of "your
    address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or distribute
    under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the PHP group for
    the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object relational system, etc.
    etc.

    Once that is done, and the Representatives of "The PostgreSQL Global
    Development Group" have signed off, you should just be allowed to copy. In
    fact, I would say that is the best way to do it. Even copying and
    rephrasing is copyright infringement. The only way around it is the
    Phoenix technology method, where an unspoiled writer would take
    instructions from you and your read of the original documentation.

    Seriously, this should happen anyway. The PHP guys are not doing due
    diligence on what they accept.
  • Peter Eisentraut at Mar 17, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    Mark Woodward wrote:
    I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
    representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
    has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
    "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
    distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
    PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
    relational system, etc. etc.
    The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
    relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
    someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
    it under the terms spelled out in the license.
  • Bruce Momjian at Mar 17, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    Mark Woodward wrote:
    I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
    representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
    has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
    "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
    distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
    PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
    relational system, etc. etc.
    The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
    relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
    someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
    it under the terms spelled out in the license.
    Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a
    closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the
    existing BSD license?

    --
    Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
    pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
    + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
    + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 17, 2005 at 3:37 pm

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    Mark Woodward wrote:
    I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
    representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
    has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
    "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
    distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
    PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
    relational system, etc. etc.
    The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
    relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
    someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
    it under the terms spelled out in the license.
    Uh, is our documentation not BSD licensed? When someone makes a
    closed-source version of PostgreSQL, are they just adding to the
    existing BSD license?
    The BSD license requires that original copyright owner maintain ownership
    of copyright. The PHP guys want the works to be under PHP ownership.
    Specifically:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    PostgreSQL Database Management System
    (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)

    Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2005, 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.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 17, 2005 at 3:28 pm

    Mark Woodward wrote:
    I would say that "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group" or its
    representatives (I'm assuming Tom, Bruce, and/or Marc Fournier) just
    has to give something written, that says Christopher Kings-Lynne of
    "your address, city, country, etc" has the right to re-license or
    distribute under the PHP license the PostgreSQL documentation to the
    PHP group for the purpose of documenting the PostgreSQL object
    relational system, etc. etc.
    The license of the PostgreSQL documentation does not give the right to
    relicense it nor does it give "representatives" the right to give
    someone permission to relicense it. The only right you have is to use
    it under the terms spelled out in the license.
    This not about the "license" per se'. This is about the legal rights of
    the copyright holder. The documentation claims:

    PostgreSQL 8.0.1 Documentation
    The PostgreSQL Global Development Group
    Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group

    As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," has the
    right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For PHP to
    sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered in writing.
    Verbal agreements are not valid.
  • Peter Eisentraut at Mar 17, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    Mark Woodward wrote:
    As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group,"
    has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For
    PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered
    in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid.
    The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so
    it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright
    holders can do that.

    What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept
    contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will
    not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are
    derived from PostgreSQL software.

    (Note that I am not opposed to someone else copying PostgreSQL software;
    I wouldn't be in this project otherwise. I'm just explaining the
    situation.)
  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 17, 2005 at 6:10 pm

    Mark Woodward wrote:
    As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group,"
    has the right to license the documentation any way they see fit. For
    PHP to sub-license the documentation, it legally has to be transfered
    in writing. Verbal agreements are not valid.
    The PostgreSQL Global Development Group is not an incorporated body, so
    it cannot engage in legal transactions. Only the individual copyright
    holders can do that.
    Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
    identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
    there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
    government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
    copyright.

    IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
    What this all boils down to is this: If the PHP project will only accept
    contributions if the copyright is signed over to them, then they will
    not, as a practical matter, be able to incorporate works that are
    derived from PostgreSQL software.
    Since the document is
    "Copyright © 1996-2005 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group"

    "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
    they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
  • Tom Lane at Mar 17, 2005 at 6:32 pm

    "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
    Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
    identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
    there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
    government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
    copyright.
    IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
    Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
    It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
    clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
    to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
    go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
    committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.

    In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
    just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
    the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
    Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
    "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
    they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
    No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
    behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.

    regards, tom lane
  • Mark L. Woodward at Mar 17, 2005 at 6:44 pm

    "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
    Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
    identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however,
    that
    there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
    government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
    copyright.
    IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
    Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
    It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
    clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
    to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
    go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
    committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.

    In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
    just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
    the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
    Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
    What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
    put it in the public domain like SQLite?
    "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be,
    whatever
    they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
    No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
    behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.
    Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create a
    paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group,"
    and claim ownership.
  • Tom Lane at Mar 17, 2005 at 6:47 pm

    "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
    In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
    just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
    the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
    Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
    What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
    put it in the public domain like SQLite?
    We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in practice
    there's hardly any difference anyway.

    regards, tom lane
  • Greg Sabino Mullane at Mar 18, 2005 at 12:15 pm

    We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in
    practice there's hardly any difference anyway.
    Just out of curiosity, are the docs covered by the Berkeley copyright?
    I know the code originally came from there, but did our current docs
    evolve from them, or were they created later on?

    - --
    Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
    PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200503171713
    http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
  • Bruce Momjian at Mar 18, 2005 at 1:06 pm
    Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
    [ There is text before PGP section. ]
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    We can't, because we can't revoke Berkeley's copyright. But in
    practice there's hardly any difference anyway.
    Just out of curiosity, are the docs covered by the Berkeley copyright?
    I know the code originally came from there, but did our current docs
    evolve from them, or were they created later on?
    They evolved, so they are BSD copyrighted.

    --
    Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
    pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
    + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
    + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
  • Peter Eisentraut at Mar 17, 2005 at 7:17 pm

    Mark Woodward wrote:
    Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create
    a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment
    Group," and claim ownership.
    No, the point is that we want to stick at least *some* copyright notice
    in the code, so people are advised that the code is copyrighted and
    they are given an indication about whom they might contact about it.

    According to international treaties, copyright to anything is in fact
    owned by whoever created it (or their employer), no matter what the
    copyright notice, if any, says. The copyright notice is only a service
    to, let's call them honest people, who might want to contact the author
    before using code they found. "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group"
    serves just fine as a point of contact.
  • Abhijit Menon-Sen at Mar 17, 2005 at 8:14 pm

    pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
    As the copyright owner, "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," has
    the right to license the documentation any way they see fit.
    The PGDG has never asked for copyright assignments from contributors (as
    I gather the PHP folks do), so the copyright to Postgres is collectively
    owned by everyone who has contributed to it, and not by the PGDG itself
    (as Peter said). Relicensing would require the consent of all copyright
    holders.
    At least in the USA, any entity that can be identified can own and
    control copyright.
    So this is a moot point.
    Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create
    a paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment
    Group," and claim ownership.
    And that simply isn't possible.

    -- ams
  • Marc G. Fournier at Mar 15, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

    I'm currently adding support for the v3 protocol in PHP pgsql extension.
    I'm wondering if anyone minds if I lift documentation wholesale from the
    PostgreSQL docs for the PHP docs for these functions. For instance, the
    fieldcodes allowed for PQresultErrorField, docs on PQtransactionStatus,
    etc.
    There shouldn' tbe any issues ... if I recall correctly, someone took the
    docs wholesale and bound/sold them as documentation at one point ... maybe
    an attribution as to where you got it from?

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedMar 15, '05 at 7:32a
activeMar 18, '05 at 1:06p
posts23
users9
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase