Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:
> > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> > in license war.
>
> Good point.
>
> > I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> > as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
>
> > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> > license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
> > the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
> > developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> > might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> > or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> > need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
> > will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
> point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> Perhaps something like this:
>
> The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
> concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
> many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).
It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...
