Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable? - Mailing list pgsql-general

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:

> At 00:24 5/07/00 -0400, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >>
> >> Am I correct in saying that you agree that the GPL is where we should be,
> >> but you want people to go there of their own free will?
> >
> >Why do you continue to insist that GPL is superior to BSD? GPL is BSD
> >*with restrictions*
>
> I don't. The above was a question to Jan.
>
> I have stated in the past that I would prefer PG to be GPL, but that is
> based on my perception of PG as a 'strategic resource' for my company. The
> GPL Vs. BSD discussion is a religious war that will only be resolved in
> time. I do, honestly, hope Jan is right about the convergence of open
> source and industry.

Philip ... I abhor GPL myself, which is why PostgreSQL will never fall
under it ... I think it is just this side of 'MicroSloth evil' in that it
creates way more restrictions on code that are necessary.  Its been around
so long that ppl have been effectively brainwashed into thinking that
"this is the only open source license" ...

You cannot close source open source ... unless ppl don't care.  If
someone were to come along and try, someone else comes along and forks the
code off at the point *just before* the license changed and continues
along their own thread.  Quite frankly, that person forking it off would
be me, since PostgreSQL was never intended to be closed source ...

... it doesn't matter if the code is under BSD or GPL, that fork can (and
will) happen ... with GPL, its near impossible to do ... with BSD, its
easier, but it buys little for the commercial enterprise doing so ...

I was going to say that what BSD buys someone over GPL is the ability to
create modules taht are binary only, but even GPL allows for that
... *shrug*


> >A) Good for the major developers - they deserve to have large
> >sums of cash thrown their way, particularly for many of them who
> >have been working on this *for years*
>
> I totally agree. This can happen under GPL. If I were a company wanting to
> develop PG, the source would be less of an issue than access to the core
> developers who are the real resource. As Jan has said elsewhere, keeping
> source secret is a waste of effort.

Okay, so BSD vs GPL matters not here ...

> >B) The moment it happens, the project forks and another "Marc"
> >out-there offers to host development on his machine and the
> >process begins again. PostgreSQL exists despite Illustra's
> >existence.
>
> No problem here but wasted effort.

And BSD vs GPL matters not here ...

> In summary of my position:
>
> 1. I am happy to continue with vanilla BSD + extra warranty & liability
> disclaimers.

This is my feeling too ... I won't agree to changing the license over to a
"under juristiction of ...", nor will I agreee with the "slam this in
front of ppls faces and force them to read it ...".

Personally, from all the 'legal' issues that FreeBSD has gone through over
the years, especially recently with the BSDi/FreeBSD merger and the whole
cryptology merger, I would think they would have been the first to
adopt/change their BSD license to something else, and I've never even seen
discussions on it ...

Putting the license up as a README on the ftp site, and maybe including it
as part of the download page ... no probs, not obnoxious ... hell, how
many ppl even read the license on sites that require a 'I agree'?