Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL - Mailing list pgsql-general

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> I have to admit you hit on exactly why I worded the original as I did.
> It emphasizes the commonality of the two licenses, and specifically
> points out the the part of the GPL that we don't like, without slamming
> it.

That wording invites responses from people who want to give you reasons
to change it.  Do you want to put the issue to bed or invite more debate?


>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jason Earl wrote:
> > 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.
>


Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================