Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > (3) Postgres already distributes source, although it does not appear
> > that is required. pgsql inc's desire to have a two year closed source,
> > they would have to make sure they made available any changes they make
> > to GNU source.
>
> This is a misinterpretation of our intent. As we've said repeatedly in
> the past, any restricted distribution of our products would apply to
> *layered* products and to other items not considered part of the
> PostgreSQL core, and for a period of time allowing cost recovery. No
> hard two year limit, and no restricted distro on anything one might
> reasonably feel entitled to receiving gratis.
>
> Sorry for any confusion.
There was no confusion. I understand what pgsql inc. wants to do and I
have no problem with it, in principle. My only concern was, and I think
it was done to death and clarified, was the implication that some core
Postgres code would be released in this way. It was a miscommunication,
a regrettable one. It has been made abundantly clear that this will not
be the case.
I made mention of pgsql in my earlier post because I understood that
they wanted to make add-on projects for Postgres, which were not
immediately open source, and the GPL license may present some
ramifications. In particular, one paragraph seemed to imply that simply
using one or more GPL packages, without modification, did not force an
entire project to require a GPL license.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
