postgres-xc-general Mailing List for Postgres-XC (Page 2)

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd...@co...>wrote:

>
> On 07/23/2012 03:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>      Agreed, which is why I suggested keeping our hands clean but forcing
>> the
>>     good community-citizen approach with attribution.
>>
>> On this point I kind of agree, everything that is labelled as
>> "Postgres-XC development group" should be based on the same license as
>> the code to facilitate all the things.
>> However, docs written by guys not using Postgres-XC development group
>> name on their docs but a personal name or company name can provide the
>> license they want and if other people want to pick up those documents
>> they need to contact the authors. This is for example the case of my own
>> presentation documents. Those docs are under non-commercial as I use on
>> them my company name and my own name.
>>
>
> There is no way to force any author to release any document under any
> license except in the instance where the author would like to contribute
> that documentation directly to the Postgres-XC development group. In that
> case (say a patch submission, or acceptance on the website or wiki) we can
> force a specific license. Otherwise, we are powerless.

So we agree here.


>  So Michael, I believe with that your concerns are addressed, yes?

Yes.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

On 07/23/2012 03:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:

>     Agreed, which is why I suggested keeping our hands clean but forcing the
>     good community-citizen approach with attribution.
>
> On this point I kind of agree, everything that is labelled as
> "Postgres-XC development group" should be based on the same license as
> the code to facilitate all the things.
> However, docs written by guys not using Postgres-XC development group
> name on their docs but a personal name or company name can provide the
> license they want and if other people want to pick up those documents
> they need to contact the authors. This is for example the case of my own
> presentation documents. Those docs are under non-commercial as I use on
> them my company name and my own name.

There is no way to force any author to release any document under any 
license except in the instance where the author would like to contribute 
that documentation directly to the Postgres-XC development group. In 
that case (say a patch submission, or acceptance on the website or wiki) 
we can force a specific license. Otherwise, we are powerless.

So Michae, I believe with that your concerns are addressed, yes?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd...@co...>wrote:

>
> On 07/21/2012 01:01 PM, Mason Sharp wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Koichi Suzuki
> > <koi...@gm...> wrote:
> >> As Mason suggested, I think it's safer to begin with non-commercial
> >> license.   Commercial use can be licensed in case-by-case basis and we
> >> should license as long as the use helps XC.   There could be many
> >> different commercial use and I'm not sure if the commercial license
> >> helps XC in many corner cases.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, I just meant that I think anything created by the
> > "Postgres-XC Development Group" as a whole should allow liberal usage
> > (whatever license that would be), including commercial use, and that
> > if someone creates something and wants some restrictions, they should
> > do it under their own name or company. Isn't that similar to the
> > PostgreSQL community?
>
> Well PostgreSQL is 100% BSD (docs included) so.... you can pretty much
> do whatever you want.
>
> >  If the others in the XC community wants to go a
> > different route, that's fine, I just hope it does not become overly
> > bureaucratic.
>
> Agreed, which is why I suggested keeping our hands clean but forcing the
> good community-citizen approach with attribution.
>
On this point I kind of agree, everything that is labelled as "Postgres-XC
development group" should be based on the same license as the code to
facilitate all the things.
However, docs written by guys not using Postgres-XC development group name
on their docs but a personal name or company name can provide the license
they want and if other people want to pick up those documents they need to
contact the authors. This is for example the case of my own presentation
documents. Those docs are under non-commercial as I use on them my company
name and my own name.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

On 07/21/2012 01:01 PM, Mason Sharp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Koichi Suzuki
> <koi...@gm...> wrote:
>> As Mason suggested, I think it's safer to begin with non-commercial
>> license.   Commercial use can be licensed in case-by-case basis and we
>> should license as long as the use helps XC.   There could be many
>> different commercial use and I'm not sure if the commercial license
>> helps XC in many corner cases.
>>
>
> Actually, I just meant that I think anything created by the
> "Postgres-XC Development Group" as a whole should allow liberal usage
> (whatever license that would be), including commercial use, and that
> if someone creates something and wants some restrictions, they should
> do it under their own name or company. Isn't that similar to the
> PostgreSQL community?

Well PostgreSQL is 100% BSD (docs included) so.... you can pretty much 
do whatever you want.

>  If the others in the XC community wants to go a
> different route, that's fine, I just hope it does not become overly
> bureaucratic.

Agreed, which is why I suggested keeping our hands clean but forcing the 
good community-citizen approach with attribution.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>
> --
> Mason Sharp
>
> StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
> The Database Cloud
>


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

Sorry, it was a wrong refer.   Joshua suggested some of the
fundraising and copyright.   Anyway, I think it's better to start with
non-commercial and see what corner cases we should be careful about.

Regards;
----------
Koichi Suzuki


2012/7/22 Mason Sharp <ma...@st...>:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Koichi Suzuki
> <koi...@gm...> wrote:
>> As Mason suggested, I think it's safer to begin with non-commercial
>> license.   Commercial use can be licensed in case-by-case basis and we
>> should license as long as the use helps XC.   There could be many
>> different commercial use and I'm not sure if the commercial license
>> helps XC in many corner cases.
>>
>
> Actually, I just meant that I think anything created by the
> "Postgres-XC Development Group" as a whole should allow liberal usage
> (whatever license that would be), including commercial use, and that
> if someone creates something and wants some restrictions, they should
> do it under their own name or company. Isn't that similar to the
> PostgreSQL community?  If the others in the XC community wants to go a
> different route, that's fine, I just hope it does not become overly
> bureaucratic.
>
> --
> Mason Sharp
>
> StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
> The Database Cloud

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Koichi Suzuki
<koi...@gm...> wrote:
> As Mason suggested, I think it's safer to begin with non-commercial
> license.   Commercial use can be licensed in case-by-case basis and we
> should license as long as the use helps XC.   There could be many
> different commercial use and I'm not sure if the commercial license
> helps XC in many corner cases.
>

Actually, I just meant that I think anything created by the
"Postgres-XC Development Group" as a whole should allow liberal usage
(whatever license that would be), including commercial use, and that
if someone creates something and wants some restrictions, they should
do it under their own name or company. Isn't that similar to the
PostgreSQL community?  If the others in the XC community wants to go a
different route, that's fine, I just hope it does not become overly
bureaucratic.

--
Mason Sharp

StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
The Database Cloud

Found this.   The article refers to XC as well.
----------
Koichi Suzuki



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Travers <chr...@gm...>
Date: 2012/7/20
Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL Rising on Hackers News
To: pgsql-advocacy <pgs...@po...>


http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4268525

Thought folks here might find it interesting.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

As Mason suggested, I think it's safer to begin with non-commercial
license.   Commercial use can be licensed in case-by-case basis and we
should license as long as the use helps XC.   There could be many
different commercial use and I'm not sure if the commercial license
helps XC in many corner cases.

Regards;
----------
Koichi Suzuki


2012/7/20 Joshua D. Drake <jd...@co...>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Alright just so this topic doesn't die, this is my recommendation. I
> believe that the documentation and any "Official" community
> documentation should be licensed under:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> This allows commercial use but enforces good commercial participation in
> the community by requiring that modifications must be given back under
> the same license. In this way, changes we want as part of the community
> we can push back into the official docs at will.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general

On 07/19/2012 10:10 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks for spending time on that. The structure looks nice and
> sufficient for its purpose.
>
> I am just wondering about a couple of things...
> 1) in the documentation part, why only having a link refering to the
> docs in SourceForge? Wouldn't it make more sense to generate the docs
> automatically at each minor or major release?

Yes I just don't have that setup.

> It would also be extremely
> nice for all the developers and users to have an automatic build of
> latest development docs on master branch. Referring only to the
> sourceforge site is not really a big matter in itself but makes your
> sire structure dependent on what is in sourceforge.

Yeah I don't see that as a problem.

> 2) SourceForge is stopping support of MediaWiki at the beginning of
> September, you should remove the link to it.

Are we going to grab the content?

> 3) I also maintain a repository in Github:
> https://github.com/postgres-xc/postgres-xc. This is just a mirror but it
> is far more readable than the ugly sourceforge interface. It might be
> worth referring to it.

I would think that the GitHub should be the master branch :)

jD

>
>
> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Vladimir Stavrinov <vst...@gm...>wrote:

> I have fresh installed XC consisting of two data nodes with all defaults
> settings. Nothing special was configured. I have created database and
> one table with one only text field. Then I inserted text string and
> tried SELECT. At this point all was OK. But after shutting down of one
> data node SELECT fails returning the message in subject. This is
> not what was I expected. DROP DATANODE doesn't help. If it is not a bug,
> then I have questions:
>
This is not a bug. What you did here was removed a component from the
cluster.
An incomplete cluster will not work.


>
> 1. What should failover and then recovery procedures be after one
> data node fails?
>
Like postgreSQL, you can attach a slave node to a datanode and then perform
a failover on it.
After the master node fails for a reason or another, you will need to
promote a slave waiting behind.
Something like pg_ctl promote -D $DN_FOLDER is enough.
This is for the Datanode side.
Then what you need to do is update the node catalogs on each Coordinator to
allow them to redirect to the new promoted node.
Let's suppose that the node that failed was called datanodeN (you need the
same node name for master and slave).
In order to do that, issue "ALTER NODE datanodeN WITH (HOST = '$new_ip',
PORT = $NEW_PORT); SELECT pgxc_pool_reload();"
Do that on each Coordinator and then the promoted slave will be visible to
each Coordinator and will be a part of cluster.


> 2. Does this means, that XC is scalable in one only direction, that is
> it can be expanded, but not shrunk? In other words, we cannot remove
> data node.
>
You can remove a Datanode, just be sure that before doing that you redirect
to an existing node the data of distributed tables.
In 1.0 you can do that with those kind of things (want to remove data from
datanodeN):
CREATE TABLE new_table TO NODE (datanode1, ... datanode(N-1),
datanode(N+1), datanodeP) AS SELECT * from old_table;
DROP TABLE old_table;
ALTER TABLE new_table RENAME TO old_table;
Once you are sure that the datanode you want to remove has no unique data
(don't care about replicated...), perform a DROP NODE on each Coordinator,
then pgxc_pool_reload() and the node will be removed correctly.
Please note that I working on a patch able to do such stuff
automatically... Will be committed soon.

>
> 3. Does this means, that without external infrastructure (like drbd +
> corosync + pacemaker)  with default setup (CREATE TABLE ...
> DISTRIBUTE BY REPLICATION) XC itself have no neither HA nor LB (at least
> for writes) capabilities?
>
Basically it has both, I know some guys who are already building an HA/LB
solution based on that...
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

I have fresh installed XC consisting of two data nodes with all defaults
settings. Nothing special was configured. I have created database and
one table with one only text field. Then I inserted text string and
tried SELECT. At this point all was OK. But after shutting down of one 
data node SELECT fails returning the message in subject. This is 
not what was I expected. DROP DATANODE doesn't help. If it is not a bug,
then I have questions:

1. What should failover and then recovery procedures be after one
data node fails?

2. Does this means, that XC is scalable in one only direction, that is
it can be expanded, but not shrunk? In other words, we cannot remove
data node.

3. Does this means, that without external infrastructure (like drbd +
corosync + pacemaker)  with default setup (CREATE TABLE ...
DISTRIBUTE BY REPLICATION) XC itself have no neither HA nor LB (at least
for writes) capabilities?

If all this true, it is not a cluster that I imagined after reading
XC description and what is expected from cluster at all.

-- 

***************************
##  Vladimir Stavrinov
##  vst...@gm...
***************************

Thanks for spending time on that. The structure looks nice and sufficient
for its purpose.

I am just wondering about a couple of things...
1) in the documentation part, why only having a link refering to the docs
in SourceForge? Wouldn't it make more sense to generate the docs
automatically at each minor or major release? It would also be extremely
nice for all the developers and users to have an automatic build of latest
development docs on master branch. Referring only to the sourceforge site
is not really a big matter in itself but makes your sire structure
dependent on what is in sourceforge.
2) SourceForge is stopping support of MediaWiki at the beginning of
September, you should remove the link to it.
3) I also maintain a repository in Github:
https://github.com/postgres-xc/postgres-xc. This is just a mirror but it is
far more readable than the ugly sourceforge interface. It might be worth
referring to it.

I am sure there will be other comments from members.
BR & thx!

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd...@co...>wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I know it has been a few weeks but we spend some time on the proposed
> new site. Not a whole lot of time but enough to actually have a
> structure. Please take a look at provide feedback:
>
> http://xc.commandprompt.com/
>
> JD
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
> High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
> @cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>



-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

Hello,

I know it has been a few weeks but we spend some time on the proposed 
new site. Not a whole lot of time but enough to actually have a 
structure. Please take a look at provide feedback:

http://xc.commandprompt.com/

JD
-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

Hello,

Alright just so this topic doesn't die, this is my recommendation. I 
believe that the documentation and any "Official" community 
documentation should be licensed under:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

This allows commercial use but enforces good commercial participation in 
the community by requiring that modifications must be given back under 
the same license. In this way, changes we want as part of the community 
we can push back into the official docs at will.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Aris Setyawan <ari...@gm...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was able to configure postgresql 9.1 for total memory usage about
> less than(in lowend VPS)  8MB.
>
That's kind of low... Do you know that shared_buffers is usually set at 25%
of your machine shared memory in average for PostgreSQL?


>
> How about postgres-xc data-node behavior? Is it still the same way with
> ordinary postgresql to configure?
>
Yes, it should be the same.
The only differences are:
1) XC uses 2PC internally when a transaction involves more than 2 nodes in
a write operation. So be sure to set up max_prepared_xacts to a good value.
2) Set max_connections on Datanodes in accordance with your coordinators.
Each Datanode may receive a connection from each Coordinator backend. For
example, if you have a cluster with 20 Coordinators having the same
max_connections value set. The absolute maximum of connections that 1
Datanode of your cluster can get is 20 * max_connections. You should never
reach this absolute value in practice, but just be aware of that depending
on your application.



> How about GTM memory usage? Can I limit their memory?
>
There are no GUC parameters that allow in gtm.conf that allow to control
the memory used at GTM level.
You can still change the maximum number of backends allowed in GTM. This
could bring some kind of control on the max memory a GTM uses.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

The Postgres-XC documentation and articles/talks/presentation etc.
material, based on XC are two different matters.

For Postgres-XC documentation, the license similar to code should apply. I
don't think there is

For rest of the material/media produced, I don't think, we can enforce any
kind of copy-right as such. The copy-right/licensing will solely depend
upon the author OR the sponsor for such work OR the media where the
material gets published. In fact, we may not be able to enforce any rules
on such production.

If any individual on his/her own is producing a piece of information about
XC, its experience etc. s/he will decide how this material can be further
used and will be governed by the material s/he uses to produce this
material. If the work is being sponsored by someone, the sponsor would be
deciding the terms of usage of such material. In many cases, where such
material is published in magazines or conferences or proceedings, the
publishers have their own copy-right/license rules.

We still can decide what rules to apply to the material produced till date,
which is out of any copy-right/licensing terms.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...
> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> As raised by Mason and commented by many members, I think it's a time
>> to determine how XC-related documents/contents license should be.
>> Here's my idea.
>>
>> 1. As Mason proposed, I think creative commons is suitable for XC
>> documents/contents (except for the code and the reference, they're
>> licensed under PostgreSQL license).
>> 2. Only for non-commercial use.   For commercial use, need specific
>> approval.
>> 3.  Share-alike.  Can distribute the resulting work only under the
>> same or similar license.
>>
> OK here.
>
>> 4. Original Author.   I'm thinking at least "Postgres-XC development
>> group" should be referred as an original author in derived work.
>>
> As suggested by Pavan and you, XC Development group will be enough... This
> is going to be a pain through years if we look for a special author on a
> special document.
>
>




>
>> If anybody would like to use XC documents/contents commercially, they
>> need to have specific approval.
>
> Or they can make a new one from scratch.
>
>>   I'm also thinking to establish "fund
>> raising group" who receives and approves commercial use, as well as
>> future fundraising work.   This is closed group consists of selected
>> XC mailing list reader.   I'd like to draft update to the charter of
>> the group for comments.
>>
> Those are good ideas, able to diversify the origin of funds able to reach
> the project.
> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>
>


-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EntepriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise Postgres Company

No, we don't have a menas to limit GTM memory usage.   Most of the
memory is for temporary basis.    Only memory with long lifetime is
the structure to hold current live transactions.   It is very very
small compared with those datanode/coordinator consumes so I thought
usual GTM installation will never be suffered for the memory shortage.

Regards;
----------
Koichi Suzuki


2012/7/14 Aris Setyawan <ari...@gm...>:
> Hi,
>
> I was able to configure postgresql 9.1 for total memory usage about
> less than(in lowend VPS)  8MB.
>
> How about postgre-xc data-node behavior? Is it still the same way with
> ordinary postgresql to configure?
>
> How about GTM memory usage? Can I limit their memory?
>
> -thanks
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general

"Commercial" has very very wide corner cases and I think it's  not
practical to allow "any" commercial use.   Reference document, as you
find in doc-xc in our GIT is licensed under PostgreSQL license and is
exceptional because it is essentially the same as the code.

For other materials, they have different backgrounds and is reasonable
to allow only non-commercial user while the users can change the
contents.    As suggested, individual document can be given different
copyright or license as done in PG materials.

I also think that commercial use should be licensed individually and
should be licensed free or almost free if the use helps XC community.

Yes, fundraising group will help for the licensing, as well as more
general financial help.   Getting financial help from organizations
other than NTT is very very helpful for XC community.     It will be
nice to begin to discuss this.

Regards;
----------
Koichi Suzuki


2012/7/14 Michael Paquier <mic...@gm...>:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Mason Sharp <ma...@st...> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...>
>> wrote:
>> > Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially
>> > as well.
>> >
>>
>> I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
>> could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
>> usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
>> it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
>> Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
>> that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
>> easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
>> and bureaucracy.
>
> Just to be clear: what are the documents you are talking about?
> If it is the documentation in GIT, then it falls under Postgres-XC
> Development Group copyright and is licensed as PostgreSQL license.
> If it is the presentation documents that have been used at conferences, this
> is different. And in this case if you want to reuse those materials you
> might need to contact the authors except if they decided to transmit the
> copyright of their documents under Postgres-XC Development Group. For
> example, I haven't written any presentation document under Postgres-XC
> Development group label, and I don't recall that I transmitted the right to
> use my own presentation slides for commercial usages.
> --
> Michael Paquier
> http://michael.otacoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>

Hi,

I was able to configure postgresql 9.1 for total memory usage about
less than(in lowend VPS)  8MB.

How about postgre-xc data-node behavior? Is it still the same way with
ordinary postgresql to configure?

How about GTM memory usage? Can I limit their memory?

-thanks

>
>
> > I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
> > could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
> > usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
> > it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
> > Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
> > that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
> > easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
> > and bureaucracy.
> >
>
> Yes, it does keep it simple for the community. However, there are
> perfectly valid arguments for other structures that are also positive.
> For example, if the docs are licensed in a way that allows free sharing
> but not for commercial use, if someone wants to use them commercially
> there could be a defined fee/donation to the community that gets paid.
> That fee can help with things like having testing clusters.
>
True. XC activities are now uniquely funded by NTT.
Diversifying the sources of funding is necessary to reinforce the
economical model and the independency of the project.

That said, I sit on the fundraising group, the sponsorship committee,
> and am a director for Pg.US and SPI. Meetings are a pain :P
>
Hehe :)


> Personally, if I have a vote the license (for Postgres-XC as well but
> let's not start that thread) would not be BSD, but LGPL. The LGPL allows
> people to commercialize the product BUT and here is the big BUT, it
> requires that any changes to the product must also be given back. For
> our docs, that could be a real boon, please use them commercially,
> please sell them, please change them as much as you like but understand
> that you must give all those improvements back to the community as well.
>
LGLP might be a possibility in the future to insure the economical model of
the project. So is is true that this cannot be excluded.
However, XC stays BSD now.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Michael Paquier
<mic...@gm...>wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Mason Sharp <ma...@st...> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...>
>> wrote:
>> > Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially
>> as well.
>> >
>>
>> I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
>> could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
>> usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
>> it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
>> Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
>> that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
>> easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
>> and bureaucracy.
>>
> Just to be clear: what are the documents you are talking about?
> If it is the documentation in GIT, then it falls
> under Postgres-XC Development Group copyright and is licensed as PostgreSQL
> license.
>

At least this is the license written physically inside GIT. But I might be
missing something as I am not a lawyer.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Mason Sharp <ma...@st...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...>
> wrote:
> > Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially
> as well.
> >
>
> I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
> could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
> usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
> it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
> Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
> that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
> easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
> and bureaucracy.
>
Just to be clear: what are the documents you are talking about?
If it is the documentation in GIT, then it falls
under Postgres-XC Development Group copyright and is licensed as PostgreSQL
license.
If it is the presentation documents that have been used at conferences,
this is different. And in this case if you want to reuse those materials
you might need to contact the authors except if they decided to transmit
the copyright of their documents under Postgres-XC Development Group. For
example, I haven't written any presentation document under Postgres-XC
Development group label, and I don't recall that I transmitted the right to
use my own presentation slides for commercial usages.
-- 
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com

On 07/13/2012 06:27 AM, Mason Sharp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...> wrote:
>> Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially as well.
>>
>
> I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
> could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
> usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
> it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
> Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
> that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
> easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
> and bureaucracy.
>

Yes, it does keep it simple for the community. However, there are 
perfectly valid arguments for other structures that are also positive. 
For example, if the docs are licensed in a way that allows free sharing 
but not for commercial use, if someone wants to use them commercially 
there could be a defined fee/donation to the community that gets paid. 
That fee can help with things like having testing clusters.

That said, I sit on the fundraising group, the sponsorship committee, 
and am a director for Pg.US and SPI. Meetings are a pain :P

Personally, if I have a vote the license (for Postgres-XC as well but 
let's not start that thread) would not be BSD, but LGPL. The LGPL allows 
people to commercialize the product BUT and here is the big BUT, it 
requires that any changes to the product must also be given back. For 
our docs, that could be a real boon, please use them commercially, 
please sell them, please change them as much as you like but understand 
that you must give all those improvements back to the community as well.

The creative commons has a very similar license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Sincerely,

jD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...> wrote:
> Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially as well.
>

I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group
could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal
usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put
it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC
Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is
that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?).  It seems like an
easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees
and bureaucracy.

> I'd like to have ideas from others.
>

> Regards;
> ---
> Koichi Suzuki
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:41:26 -0400
> Mason Sharp <ma...@st...> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Koichi Suzuki
>> <koi...@gm...> wrote:
>> > As raised by Mason and commented by many members, I think it's a time
>> > to determine how XC-related documents/contents license should be.
>> > Here's my idea.
>> >
>> > 1. As Mason proposed, I think creative commons is suitable for XC
>> > documents/contents (except for the code and the reference, they're
>> > licensed under PostgreSQL license).
>> >
>> > 2. Only for non-commercial use.   For commercial use, need specific approval.
>>
>> You referred to XC-related documents. Do you mean the official
>> Postgres-XC documentation? I think the documentation should have the
>> same license as whatever the software is.  Think of PostgreSQL itself.
>> It would seem a bit odd if the PostgreSQL documentation had a
>> different license than PostgreSQL. Other commercial software might be
>> reluctant to use PostgreSQL as its database if they had to rewrite the
>> documentation. I think a liberal license was chosen by the PostgreSQL
>> folks in part to increase adoption.
>>
>> >
>> > 3.  Share-alike.  Can distribute the resulting work only under the
>> > same or similar license.
>> >
>> > 4. Original Author.   I'm thinking at least "Postgres-XC development
>> > group" should be referred as an original author in derived work.
>>
>> >
>> > 1, 2 and 3 makes the license Attribute-NonComercial-ShareAlike 3.0
>> > Unported (or CC BY-NC-SA 3.0).
>>
>> Just curious, what is the concern if used commercially?  Let's say I
>> offer training for a fee, so companies can be assured that XC will be
>> professionally supported with professional services and training. If
>> any presentations are credited to the Postgres-XC Development Group,
>> who are the members of the development group and who makes the final
>> decision in terms of granting permission to use the material?  I think
>> the various PostgreSQL companies that offer training all probably have
>> some overlap of materials gained from the community.  As one of the
>> original architects of Postgres-XC, and I would want to try and be
>> part of any decision making process. Maybe a solution is if a company
>> does not want a presentation to be modified for some reason they
>> should write it under their company or as an individual and not within
>> the Postgres-XC Development Group. In contrast, if any material is
>> credited to the Postgres-XC Development Group, it should be allowed to
>> be used liberally, even for commercial use, since the other body of
>> work (the source code) is BSD-like (The PostgreSQL License). If NTT
>> Data wants their presentations under a Creative Commons non-commercial
>> license, then they can retain the copyright, and not credit the
>> Postgres-XC Development Group.
>
> Hmmm... I understand the case.   Do you think it's better to allow commercial license?
>
> Like to have ideas from others too.
> ---
> Koichi
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I think you will have different idea on 4.   I'd like to collect
>> > inputs to have our final idea.
>> >
>> > If anybody would like to use XC documents/contents commercially, they
>> > need to have specific approval.   I'm also thinking to establish "fund
>> > raising group" who receives and approves commercial use, as well as
>> > future fundraising work.   This is closed group consists of selected
>> > XC mailing list reader.   I'd like to draft update to the charter of
>> > the group for comments.
>> >
>> > Any inputs to this idea is welcome.
>> >
>> > Best Regards;
>> > ----------
>> > Koichi Suzuki
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Live Security Virtual Conference
>> > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>> > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
>> > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
>> > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Postgres-xc-general mailing list
>> > Pos...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mason Sharp
>>
>> StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
>> The Database Cloud
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Live Security Virtual Conference
>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
>> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
>> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
>> Pos...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>>



-- 
Mason Sharp

StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
The Database Cloud

Mason is proposing that it's better to license XC contents commercially as well.

I'd like to have ideas from others.

Regards;
---
Koichi Suzuki

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 06:41:26 -0400
Mason Sharp <ma...@st...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Koichi Suzuki
> <koi...@gm...> wrote:
> > As raised by Mason and commented by many members, I think it's a time
> > to determine how XC-related documents/contents license should be.
> > Here's my idea.
> >
> > 1. As Mason proposed, I think creative commons is suitable for XC
> > documents/contents (except for the code and the reference, they're
> > licensed under PostgreSQL license).
> >
> > 2. Only for non-commercial use.   For commercial use, need specific approval.
> 
> You referred to XC-related documents. Do you mean the official
> Postgres-XC documentation? I think the documentation should have the
> same license as whatever the software is.  Think of PostgreSQL itself.
> It would seem a bit odd if the PostgreSQL documentation had a
> different license than PostgreSQL. Other commercial software might be
> reluctant to use PostgreSQL as its database if they had to rewrite the
> documentation. I think a liberal license was chosen by the PostgreSQL
> folks in part to increase adoption.
> 
> >
> > 3.  Share-alike.  Can distribute the resulting work only under the
> > same or similar license.
> >
> > 4. Original Author.   I'm thinking at least "Postgres-XC development
> > group" should be referred as an original author in derived work.
> 
> >
> > 1, 2 and 3 makes the license Attribute-NonComercial-ShareAlike 3.0
> > Unported (or CC BY-NC-SA 3.0).
> 
> Just curious, what is the concern if used commercially?  Let's say I
> offer training for a fee, so companies can be assured that XC will be
> professionally supported with professional services and training. If
> any presentations are credited to the Postgres-XC Development Group,
> who are the members of the development group and who makes the final
> decision in terms of granting permission to use the material?  I think
> the various PostgreSQL companies that offer training all probably have
> some overlap of materials gained from the community.  As one of the
> original architects of Postgres-XC, and I would want to try and be
> part of any decision making process. Maybe a solution is if a company
> does not want a presentation to be modified for some reason they
> should write it under their company or as an individual and not within
> the Postgres-XC Development Group. In contrast, if any material is
> credited to the Postgres-XC Development Group, it should be allowed to
> be used liberally, even for commercial use, since the other body of
> work (the source code) is BSD-like (The PostgreSQL License). If NTT
> Data wants their presentations under a Creative Commons non-commercial
> license, then they can retain the copyright, and not credit the
> Postgres-XC Development Group.

Hmmm... I understand the case.   Do you think it's better to allow commercial license?

Like to have ideas from others too.
---
Koichi

> 
> 
> >
> > I think you will have different idea on 4.   I'd like to collect
> > inputs to have our final idea.
> >
> > If anybody would like to use XC documents/contents commercially, they
> > need to have specific approval.   I'm also thinking to establish "fund
> > raising group" who receives and approves commercial use, as well as
> > future fundraising work.   This is closed group consists of selected
> > XC mailing list reader.   I'd like to draft update to the charter of
> > the group for comments.
> >
> > Any inputs to this idea is welcome.
> >
> > Best Regards;
> > ----------
> > Koichi Suzuki
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Live Security Virtual Conference
> > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> > Pos...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mason Sharp
> 
> StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
> The Database Cloud
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Postgres-xc-general mailing list
> Pos...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-general
>