Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Vince Vielhaber |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.40.0201211309460.74942-100000@paprika.michvhf.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > mlw wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may > > > > or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from > > > > Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's > > > > unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it > > > > was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its > > > > restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers" > > > > uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about > > > > that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that > > > > would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds > > > > of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds > > > > of those that prefer BSD. > > > > > > Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we > > > should say that in there. > > > > Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to > > just say it is counter to policy? > > > > I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment > > both camps have to their license. > > > > I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites > > debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for > > all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will > > remain as it always has. > > This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back > to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an > old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL, > which I don't think is true, or at least not certain. > > We need something that: > > 1) quells debate > 2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have > 3) encourages BSD license usage > > Basically, we need some wording that no only quells debate, but also > paints BSD as a favorable license that people should like and use. We > have people contributing modules in /contrib, and some of them are > GPL'ing them because we don't have a statement about our license and why > we are proud of it. If we don't have such a statement, it is hard to > encourage people to contribute new modules under BSD rather than GPL. > > No wording is going to be perfect, but I do believe we need to have a > positive statement of BSD in that paragraph and how it can be seen as > prefereable to GPL. > > Between this and Marc's comment, I think I can come up with the right wording. Give me a bit. 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 ==========================================================================
pgsql-general by date: