> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer buying
>> up
>> the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
>
> You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
> licensee agrees to it. If something is released GPL, then the GPL
> applies to that code and subsequent derivatives - that's the point of
> the GPL.
>
> The new "owner" may change the terms of a license for new distributions
> of a package, assuming they actually own all the IP, and this is what I
> understand is the SCO issue. SCO claim that code that was distributed
> was done so without permission.
Imagine this scenario:
OpenFoobar is released as GPL. Portions of his code are found in
PostgreSQL. The new owner of OpenFoobar is an IP lawyer. They claim
ownership of code "derived" from "his" code. There is now a valid, or at
least legally arguable, argument that PostgreSQL now demands GPL source
availability.
I use PostgreSQL as a database foundation or my search-engine. Much of my
system is open source, but there are portions which are not. If the IP
lawyer is a competitor, he can force me to release my code.
We do not want to open up the BSD vs GPL debate, but keeping PG as a BSD
license does take an amount of accounting.
