On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Actually, I have a mildly amusing theory about this:
>
> Open-source licenses are mainly about what you can distribute and how. So
> if party A gives party B a "special exception" to the license of product P
> produced by A, then A has really lost all control, because B now has been
> given the right to distribute P under open-source terms.
I think it would depend on the wording of the exception.
> Concrete case: The config.guess script contained in the PostgreSQL source
> tree contains this notice:
>
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
>
> Since the premise of this condition is fulfilled, we may include
> config.guess under the BSD license. The BSD license says, "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", which means that *anyone* obtaining a copy of the PostgreSQL
> source tree can take the config.guess and redistribute it under
> BSD-compatible terms.
>
> So, exceptions work, but just not the way the grantor and the recipient
> think.
Heh. I definitly agree with you here. If the exceptions looked like the
one above, there would be no problem. :-)
Take care,
Bill
