...
> You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the
> repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd
> license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've
> experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to
> explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This
> simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no
> reason to ask why when that answer is already given.
Hmm. But it isn't a simple explanation, it invites controversy and
argument, and it isn't necessary. I appreciate your efforts to find some
other phrasing while still addressing "why don't we switch?", but imho
that line of explanation just shouldn't be there, period.
Let's get back to the FAQ issue. There are two questions which might be
asked and which might be included in a FAQ:
1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license?
A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the
BSD license. That license has served us well over many years.
2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
A: See (1)
- Thomas
