On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh, all:
>
> > >I'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but I think more emphasis
> > >about what being BSD licensed means for corporations would be good.
> > >We're seeing companies that are pleasantly surprised to find out how
> > >much more flexible dealing with PostgreSQL is from a licensing
> > >standpoint than certain other 'free as in herpes' databases.
> >
> > I can concur with this. I have had several large customers
> > come to CMD + PostgreSQL, just because the other guys
> > are GPL.
>
> Good points all.
>
> However, I'd rather not make a big point of the license in this release.
> We did that with the last release (which paid dividends) but I think
> everyone knows about it now.
Going to have to disagree there. Actually, every commercial entity I've
talked to since starting at Pervasive either thought PostgreSQL was
GPL'd or had next to no understanding about what it's licensing was. In
every case, they were the ones asking the question, and in every case
they were very pleasantly surprised to find out about the licensing.
We can debate about whether the license should be mentioned in the
release or not, but I definitely think that there's still a whole lot of
people who should be educated about our license and what it means to
them.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
