I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:
> [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:
>
> | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
>
> | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
> | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
> | do people think of this summary:
>
> | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> | (proprietary) restrictions.
>
> Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
>
> The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
> the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
> developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> might 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 concerns, we
> will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> cheers.
> brent
>
> --
> "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
> really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
> to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
