On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
> > past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
> > we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
> > not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See
> >
> > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > parties under the terms of this License.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.
> >
> > But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
> > discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
> > future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
> > give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
> > Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?
>
> I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
> we don't want GPL.
Ya, but with your wording, you are suggesting that that desire may change
in the future ...
