Re: Ready to launch?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 20 December 2004 16:53
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Robert Treat; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Ready to launch?
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Which reminds me of a problem - *all* the website in CVS is
> published
> > under the BSD licence, however that includes the elephant
> which Emily
> > pointed out was a $100 stock photo. Technically that means
> we cannot use
> > the elephant...
>
> How so? The BSD license is not antithetical to living beside non-free
> stuff (unlike GPL).
>I agree it would be a good idea to point out
> somewhere in the relevant docs that the elephant image isn't BSD'd,
> just so no one mistakenly thinks it is.

Oh no, that's not what I meant. The entire site is in CVS (in fact,
periodically rebuilds itself from CVS), and that CVS is advertised by
the Gborg site as being covered by a BSD licence. It's not easy to edit
that as the licence is one of a number of standard ones used site wide.
If we keep the elephant in CVS, then I think we would need to include a
note saying that it is not included in the licence on every place we
have/display that licence. Not only is that a pita, but is also made
more difficult for the reason mentioned already.

Are there no good royalty free alternatives around?

Regards, Dave.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Dave Page wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>> Sent: 20 December 2004 16:53
>> To: Dave Page
>> Cc: Robert Treat; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Ready to launch?
>>
>> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>>> Which reminds me of a problem - *all* the website in CVS is
>> published
>>> under the BSD licence, however that includes the elephant
>> which Emily
>>> pointed out was a $100 stock photo. Technically that means
>> we cannot use
>>> the elephant...
>>
>> How so? The BSD license is not antithetical to living beside non-free
>> stuff (unlike GPL).
>> I agree it would be a good idea to point out
>> somewhere in the relevant docs that the elephant image isn't BSD'd,
>> just so no one mistakenly thinks it is.
>
> Oh no, that's not what I meant. The entire site is in CVS (in fact,
> periodically rebuilds itself from CVS), and that CVS is advertised by
> the Gborg site as being covered by a BSD licence. It's not easy to edit
> that as the licence is one of a number of standard ones used site wide.
> If we keep the elephant in CVS, then I think we would need to include a
> note saying that it is not included in the licence on every place we
> have/display that licence. Not only is that a pita, but is also made
> more difficult for the reason mentioned already.
>
> Are there no good royalty free alternatives around?

Could we not put it outside of CVS and just link'd in via the IMG SRC tag?

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

Hi,

> Oh no, that's not what I meant. The entire site is in CVS (in fact,

You mean the sentence at the top of the project page? "This project is
released under the Berkeley/BSD license"?

Just adding something in the project description that says what the
actual license is would work.

On the other hand, the source itself does not have a license included
(as Gavin pointed out), and does not appear to have an actual binding
license. Adding the bit about the elephant into the eventual
COPYING/LICENSE file is all that's needed in that regard.

> Are there no good royalty free alternatives around?

Uh, it *is* a royalty free image. Rights managed images cost several
thousand dollars plus. Royalty free just means you don't pay royalties.

If you mean free (libre and gratis), then it'd be virtually impossible
to find an totally free image of that quality.

Unless someone happens to be a budding photographer, and has some great
pictures of elephants in the African savannah, that is. In which case,
I'm all for it.

Or, the dancing bear. Perhaps we can dress it up as an elephant?

Omar

The License on GBorg for that project could be easily changed to
whatever makes the most sense.

Chris Ryan

--- Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: 20 December 2004 16:53
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Robert Treat; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Ready to launch?
> >
> > "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > > Which reminds me of a problem - *all* the website in CVS is
> > published
> > > under the BSD licence, however that includes the elephant
> > which Emily
> > > pointed out was a $100 stock photo. Technically that means
> > we cannot use
> > > the elephant...
> >
> > How so? The BSD license is not antithetical to living beside
> non-free
> > stuff (unlike GPL).
> >I agree it would be a good idea to point out
> > somewhere in the relevant docs that the elephant image isn't BSD'd,
> > just so no one mistakenly thinks it is.
>
> Oh no, that's not what I meant. The entire site is in CVS (in fact,
> periodically rebuilds itself from CVS), and that CVS is advertised by
> the Gborg site as being covered by a BSD licence. It's not easy to
> edit
> that as the licence is one of a number of standard ones used site
> wide.
> If we keep the elephant in CVS, then I think we would need to include
> a
> note saying that it is not included in the licence on every place we
> have/display that licence. Not only is that a pita, but is also made
> more difficult for the reason mentioned already.
>
> Are there no good royalty free alternatives around?
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail