Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > 3) encourages BSD license usage
> >
> > And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not
> > think you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not
> > keep coming up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite
> > vigorous debate with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and
> > respect for the GPL camp, I think the politics and religion of
> > license should be relegated to personal opinion.
>
> I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather
> than make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long
> ago. We _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.
Then why not simply try something like this:
We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
source" (proprietary) restrictions. Programmers that would
like to have their source code included in the official
PostgreSQL distribution will need to license their code using
a BSD style license.
This clearly sets the policy for inclusion of source code in the
official distribution without whacking the GPL hackers for their
preference in license. Even the staunchest pro-GPL hacker would agree
that the GPL has "anti-'closed source' (proprietary) restrictions."
Jason
