On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some problem to understand why you have to change the PostgreSQL
> Licence
> agreement. You are really making confusion into my mind. For me I have this
> licence
> come with all my distributions :
>
> PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres,
> then as Postgres95).
>
> Copyright (c) 1994-7 Regents of the University of California
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
> agreement
> is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
> paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
>
> etc...
>
> This the most open licence you can do, isn't it ?
>
> It just come a commercial company and things must change, why ? There's
> already companies
> saling PostgreSQL as a commercial product (see Adabas or Ingres it's looks
> like Postgres !).
>
> If you do OSS and give all the code to the community for free, what do you
> have to be protected from
> that is not done ?
>
> Your discussion seems to applies to all current programmers of PostgreSQL,
> but what about
> the olders, are they agree with this ? And if the copyrigth belong to the
> University of California
> what programmers can do to protect their works ?
>
> Apology my poor understanding but it smell something wrong for me.
> Is PostgreSQL Inc. have the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge
> concerning this licence migration ?
Nope ... this is purely a perceived problem by the Landmark/Great Bridge
folk ... one that I can't count how many OSS projects out there
don't/haven't felt a need for *shrug*
