Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright

Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> I think this is the concern (not mine, raised by others) - what
> guarantee is there that PG, Inc couldn't change the terms if 
> (say) a new disease cropped up that killed all believers in Open
> Source? :)  (yes intentionally silly).

Well, the critical point here is that neither PG, Inc nor anyone
else can *retroactively* change the terms of distribution.  The
copies that are out there are out there, with the terms of
distribution stated right in them.  Anyone can pick one up and
start doing their own thing with the code.  Neither UC Berkeley nor
any PostgreSQL contributor would have a leg to stand on to stop them;
you think the courts will look kindly on "oh, we didn't mean what we
said in the terms of distribution"?

The worst-case possible scenario is that Marc goes around the bend
and, five minutes before the release of version 7.42, announces that
7.42 will be distributed under new terms that everyone else thinks are
too tight.  Everyone else just flips him the bird, goes back to 7.41
and continues on with life.  (Furthermore, if anyone felt like suing,
such a last-minute switcheroo would never hold up in court.  Anyone
who had contributed code to 7.42 under the reasonable expectation that
it would be licensed just like 7.41 would have plenty of grounds to
say "wait a minute, where do you think you're going with my code?")

Same scenario applies if Marc gets run over by a truck and the new
owners of PG Inc try to do something unreasonable.  The fact is that
as long as the terms of distribution stay the same, PG Inc doesn't
have any real ability to hurt anyone.

If anyone wants to look into Apache and see how it's set up, I've got no
problem with taking a look.  I think it's real easy to make a mountain
out of a molehill in this area, however.  Look at FSF --- they actually
require signed paperwork (hard copy, not email) from any potential
contributor before they will accept code contributions.  Do we want to
get that anal-retentive?  I hope not.
        regards, tom lane