Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | The Hermit Hacker |
---|---|
Subject | Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0007051556090.33627-100000@thelab.hub.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license (Ron Peterson <rpeterson@yellowbank.com>) |
Responses |
Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license
|
List | pgsql-general |
just to curtail this while thread to a certain point ... switching the license to GPL is *not* on the table, nor has it every been, nor will it ever be ... On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ron Peterson wrote: > Ned, > > Thanks for inviting the community to participate in this discussion. I > wonder, though, if you might like to invite the participation of a wider > audience. While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about > all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves > the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest > that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot. > > As for the particulars of your proposal, I'd like to suggest, and I see > others agree, that it would still be premature to table the discussion > of GPL vs. BSD style licensing. If for no other reason than if not now, > when? > > There seem to be two primary objectives here: (1) protect contributers > from liability. (2) maintain the code as open source. > > I don't really understand liability issues or how they relate to the GPL > (or any other license for that matter). I'm certainly 100% in favor of > protecting PostgreSQL developers from court claims, of course. So I'm > not going to chime in about liability issues. > > One objection to the use of the GPL has been that it has never been > tested in court. That may soon change. See > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/. > > Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more > "free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone > may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't > anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition? > > > ...we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it > > more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the > > user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with > > the code. > -Ned Lilly > > To me, it's the difference between the freedom of anarchy, and the > freedom afforded by good government. Licenses are inherently > restrictive. That's the whole point of having them. This is true even > for BSD style licenses. So the question is not "do you ask the users of > your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The > question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of > your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is > just navel gazing mumbo jumbo. > > I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community" > prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how > this conclusion was reached? > > > We've also found, through some rather extensive market > > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling > > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like > > Mozilla, etc. > -Ned Lilly > > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps > they need some education. > > I would also submit that that the manner in which a survey was conducted > could greatly influence it's own results. > > Q: "Do you prefer a GPL or BSD style license?" > A: "What's the difference?" > Q: "A BSD style license gives you more flexibility in how you administer > changes you might make to the software." > A: "Well, then BSD of course." > > Nevermind that this same business might be running half of its back end > services using GPL'd software. > > How about "Would you like to know that you can take advantage of > contributions made to this software by anyone working on it worldwide?", > or "Would you like a *guarantee* that the core development team won't > duck tail and make you start paying for certain improvements?" > > I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intentions. I'm just saying that > the only *guarantee* of good intentions is the license associated with > the software. > > Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd > software. > > -Ron- > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
pgsql-general by date: