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
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.
regards, tom lane
