On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 12:01:10PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-07 20:51:56 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> > As to "dual license," that's another legal thicket in which we've been
> > wise not to involve ourselves. "Dual licensing" is generally used to
> > assert proprietary rights followed immediately by a demand for
> > payment. This is a thing we don't want to do, and it's not a thing we
> > should be enabling others to do as part of our project. If they wish
> > to do that, they're welcome to do it without our imprimatur.
>
> This is pure FUD. Obviously potential results of dual licensing depends
> on the license chosen. None of what you describe has anything to do with
> potential pieces of dual PG License / Apache 2.0 licensed code in PG, or
> anything similar. You could at any time choose to only use /
> redistribute postgres, including derivatives, under the rights either
> license permits.
>
> I think there's fair arguments to be made that we do not want to go fo
> for dual licensing with apache 2.0. Biggest among them that the current
> situation is the established practice. But let's have the arguments be
> real, not FUD.
If they have no plans to exercise any proprietary rights, our usual
process where people submit things and agree to have us label them
with the PGDG copyright and publish them under TPL would be the
simplest way to accomplish it.
Any deviation from that process requires an explanation, which has not
thus far been proffered.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
