On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 00:29, Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) wrote:
> > josh@bitbuckets.com wrote:
> >> PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD-style license, which due to its
> >> lack of licensing fees allows corporate and individual users more
> >> flexibility than the competition.
> >
> > This is an incorrect interpretation of the licensing situation.
> > There are plenty of licenses that are granted free of charge but
> > still leave the recipient without any flexibility. The advantage of
> > the BSD license is the lack of restrictions on modication and
> > distribution.
>
> I suggested, separately, a "more flexible" :-) wording for this.
>
> One of the benefits of the BSD license is that it means that users are
> not left agonizing over which license, from a "dueling licenses"
> structure, applies to them. They can do as they need to without
> needing to worry about licensing fees or choices.
The problem with this approach is that it singles out one specific
company and it's license model while ignoring the real targets like
oracle and db2... perhaps a kindler, gentler approach:
"PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license, giving maximum
flexibility for both commercial and noncommercial use. This puts our
users in control of how PostgreSQL is deployed in their organizations,
not us, which is how we feel it should be."
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
