On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
> > limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:
> >
> > The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
> > wish to impose upon our users and developers.
> >
> > Why just "commercial entities"?
>
> Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
> more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more
> detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
> possibility for problems.
>
> One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current
> license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
> Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
> I don't want to do it, but there it is.
>
> An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of
> "current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That
> last sentence could also be removed completely.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
> change it.
This one is nice and short and to the point ... I like :)
