Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>>
>>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
>>> to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
>>> Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
>>> patch under the BSD license. If you use code that is available under
>>> a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
>>> email submission. If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
>>> please do not post the patch.</li>
>> How about something simpler:
>>
>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
>> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
>> ignored.</li>
>
> No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists. There is too
> much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
> with a BSD license.
Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my
clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).
In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no
desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two
sentences. We could adjust a bit though:
<li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept
patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be
rejected.</li>
Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO"
to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.
Thoughts?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
