> This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
> point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> Perhaps something like this:
>
> The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
> concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
> many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
> BSD license for the foreseeable future.
Man, this text is getting longer. :-(
Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
Now, I don't want to do that, but I do think it is doable.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
