At 12:52 AM 1/29/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>As long as those terms don't change, adding PostgreSQL Inc (or
>PostgreSQL Nonprofit Copyright Holding Corporation, or anything else)
>to the copyright notices doesn't really change anything, except for
>adding one more line to the boilerplate notice that people aren't
>supposed to strip out of their copies.
I think this is the concern (not mine, raised by others) - what
guarantee is there that PG, Inc couldn't change the terms if
(say) a new disease cropped up that killed all believers in Open
Source? :) (yes intentionally silly).
In reality, only CHANGES could fall under more restrictive licensing,
but these changes might become intertwined in a way that made the
original distribution terms moot.
This could be really simple to fix in legal terms. With a not
for profit, distribution and development of a free and unencumbered
system could probably be incorporated into the bylaws and this may
be why the Apache Foundation was formed. It's harder with companies,
which by definition are formed to be profitable and indeed in the
eyes of the IRS are supposed to strive for that goal (though there
is no need to succeed).
So...maybe "Inc" isn't the right long-term shape of the entity?
Personally, I don't think anyone should be terribly concerned about
this. But I can see how some, especially folks who aren't US
citizens and perhaps don't know much about the realities of all this
in US law, could become concerned.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
