Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Date
Msg-id 3C4D76AA.B5F2F38D@fourpalms.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
List pgsql-general
...
> And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there.

I understand that. My point is that we are dancing around trying to find
acceptable wording for a line of explanation that simply should not be
there in the first place. Why bother mentioning "many find GPL
unacceptable", no matter what alternate phrasing is found, when the
issue for everyone with the project can boil down to much simpler, more
fundamental reasons peculiar to PostgreSQL itself:

  PostgreSQL was given to us by Berkeley with the BSD license,
  and that license has served us well.

No need to explain acceptable vs unacceptable, no need to decide whether
there are a few, some, many, or all developers feeling GPL is
unacceptable, no need for any of that.

I don't mean to be argumentative here (and hope I'm not) but it seems we
are stretching to find wording for a possibly controversial area which
is moot since there are other fundamental reasons for enjoying the
license we have.

                     - Thomas

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Christian von Kietzell
Date:
Subject: Backend not sending ReadyForQuery packet?
Next
From: Vince Vielhaber
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL