Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left?

The suggested location is %ProgramFiles%\CompanyName\ProductName but GNU products often don't have a "company", so some projects use GNU as the company name.

I'd rather it was simply %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL myself.

- Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Wieck [mailto:JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com]
Sent: 2004年2月2日 10:34
To: Steve Tibbett
Cc: 'David Garamond'; 'Dann Corbit'; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan'; 'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development'
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?

Steve Tibbett wrote:
> I think users would prefer %ProgramFiles%¥PostgreSQL - that's what
> Mozilla and some other projects do, although still other projects do
> %ProgramFiles%¥GNU¥PostgreSQL.

What would be the reason to put PostgreSQL into %ProgramFiles%¥GNU ?

Jan

>
> I'd vote for %ProgramFiles%¥PostgreSQL.
>
> - Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-win32-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-win32-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of David
> Garamond
> Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32;
> PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is
>>>>C:¥Program Files¥PostgreSQL
>>
>> More properly:
>> %ProgramFiles%¥PostgreSQL
>
> Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%¥PGDG¥PostgreSQL (or even
> %ProgramFiles%¥PGDG¥PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses
> %ProgramFiles%¥Apache Group¥Apache2.
>
> Note: Many software uses the %ProgramFiles%¥<VendorName>¥<ProductName>
> convention, but apparently Microsoft itself puts stuffs right under
> %ProgramFiles% (%ProgramFiles%¥Microsoft Money, ¥Internet Explorer,
> ¥Windows Media Player, etc).
>
>> And then, if they don't like that, let them put it wherever they darn
>> well please.
>
> --
> dave
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:45:10AM -0500, Steve Tibbett wrote:
> The suggested location is %ProgramFiles%\CompanyName\ProductName but
> GNU products often don't have a "company", so some projects use GNU as
> the company name.

FWIW, this is not a GNU project ...

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
Jajaja! Solo hablaba en serio!

Steve,

the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if
someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I
made.

Jan

Steve Tibbett wrote:
> The suggested location is %ProgramFiles%\CompanyName\ProductName but GNU products often don't have a "company", so some projects use GNU as the company name.
>
> I'd rather it was simply %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL myself.
>
> - Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Wieck [mailto:JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com]
> Sent: 2004年2月2日 10:34
> To: Steve Tibbett
> Cc: 'David Garamond'; 'Dann Corbit'; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan'; 'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development'
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
>
> Steve Tibbett wrote:
>> I think users would prefer %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL - that's what
>> Mozilla and some other projects do, although still other projects do
>> %ProgramFiles%\GNU\PostgreSQL.
>
> What would be the reason to put PostgreSQL into %ProgramFiles%\GNU ?
>
>
> Jan
>
>>
>> I'd vote for %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-hackers-win32-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-win32-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of David
>> Garamond
>> Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM
>> To: Dann Corbit
>> Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32;
>> PostgreSQL-development
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
>>
>> Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is
>>>>>C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL
>>>
>>> More properly:
>>> %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL
>>
>> Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even
>> %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses
>> %ProgramFiles%\Apache Group\Apache2.
>>
>> Note: Many software uses the %ProgramFiles%\<VendorName>\<ProductName>
>> convention, but apparently Microsoft itself puts stuffs right under
>> %ProgramFiles% (%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Money, \Internet Explorer,
>> \Windows Media Player, etc).
>>
>>> And then, if they don't like that, let them put it wherever they darn
>>> well please.
>>
>> --
>> dave
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
> --
> #======================================================================#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
> #================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:

> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.

Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.

--
greg

Greg Stark wrote:

> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
>> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
>> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
>
> Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
> imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
> Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
> Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
> it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.

I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is
only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed
something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
> >
> > Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
> > imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
> > Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
> > Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
> > it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.
>
> I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is
> only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed
> something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code?

We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a
proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from
doing the same.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> >
>> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
>> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
>> >
>> > Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
>> > imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
>> > Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
>> > Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
>> > it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.
>>
>> I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is
>> only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed
>> something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code?
>
> We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a
> proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from
> doing the same.
>

The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software.
But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to
remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd
need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Greg Stark wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> >> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
> >> >
> >> > Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
> >> > imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
> >> > Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
> >> > Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
> >> > it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.
> >>
> >> I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is
> >> only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed
> >> something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code?
> >
> > We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a
> > proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from
> > doing the same.
> >
>
> The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software.
> But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to
> remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd
> need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong?

You know, that is a good point. When someone makes a proprietary
version of PostgreSQL, what are they licensing as proprietary? The
binary or our source code? When someone takes our code, modifies it,
then makes a propriety version, are their additions only proprietary?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software.
>> But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to
>> remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd
>> need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong?

> You know, that is a good point. When someone makes a proprietary
> version of PostgreSQL, what are they licensing as proprietary? The
> binary or our source code? When someone takes our code, modifies it,
> then makes a propriety version, are their additions only proprietary?

ISTM that their own additions and changes are theirs, and can be
licensed under any license they want (in this way BSD is unlike GPL,
which tries to constrain how other people license their own work).

However, someone who makes a modified version does not own the original
unmodified Postgres code. Our license allows them to *use* that code
pretty much however they please, but that is not the same as saying they
*own* it. In particular, they could not try to stop other people
(including us) from using the original code according to our own license
terms, not theirs.

From a practical point of view, a third party buying the hypothetical
"MS PG" from MS wouldn't necessarily know or care that there were parts
of it that MS didn't own. About the only thing MS could do that would
actively violate our license would be to ship the source code with the
original copyright notices stripped off. But they'd be highly unlikely
to want to ship source code anyway.

I think our argument that we can't relicense is based on the assumption
that we are maintaining and continuing the "original" Postgres, not
developing a "derived" version. We could certainly choose to put all
new work done after, say, next Wednesday under a different license.
But it seems a tad pointless as long as any significant remnant of the
original code remains. If we want to consider the code body as a
unitary whole and not two parts, we need one license.

regards, tom lane