Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...
> > >
> > > The whole thing is too wordy.
> > >
> > > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable
> > > with restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project
> > > always has and will continue to remain under the BSD license
> > > alone.
> >
> > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no?
>
> It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people
> vote.
While it is certainly true that PostgreSQL developers are
"uncomfortable" with the GPL this version doesn't say *why* you are
uncomfortable. People that follow the BSD-GPL flamewars know what
your problems with the GPL are, but other folks that are just
peripherally aware of the debate (like those who are asking about
GPLing PostgreSQL) could very well misinterpret this. After all, if
they want you to GPL PostgreSQL then clearly they think the
"restrictions" placed by the GPL are not a big deal. To them this
statement will probably read like:
We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for
hippies and communists :).
I like the other version:
We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license
and see no need to change it.
Instead of emphasizing the problems with the GPL this version
emphasizes the benefits of the BSD license (it's the archetypal
open-source license, and it has no anti-proprietary restrictions).
This statement also specifically points out which "restrictions" to
the GPL make you uncomfortable.
I would go on to say that it "extends the hand of fellowship" by
pointing out that the GPL has similar goals, but I think that would be
a little over the top. No need to wax poetic.
My 2 cents,
Jason Earl
