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.
--
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
