Thread: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
mlw wrote: > alavoor wrote: > > > > Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next > > release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence. > > > > The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago, > > but by law it is required to include it forever with > > pgsql. > > > > I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new > > code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered > > under GNU/GPL. > > > > Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source > > products. > > Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your > views. At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code. However all future submitters would have to agree to GPL for their new code. However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What do people think of this summary: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD license for the for-seeable future. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
> the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
> license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
> license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
> PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.
I doubt this is true at all. We could possibly specify GPL for *new*
code (eg, whole new source files) that we add to the tree, but we can't
unilaterally relicense the existing code. And can you usefully specify
a GPL license for individual patches added to a basically-BSD source file?
Isn't going to work.
In any case, the discussion has been had many times before and the
answer is not going to change. I like your idea of putting something in
the FAQ to try to stave off future queries. The wording you have is
okay as far as it goes, but I'd like to see it made perfectly crystal
clear that we *have* considered GPL and we are *not* interested in
hearing any more "why don't you switch to GPL" proposals. Deleting the
"currently" would be a start.
> We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> license for the for-seeable future.
regards, tom lane
[2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said: | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What | do people think of this summary: | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source | (proprietary) restrictions. Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long as it doesn't contain any factual errors). The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future. cheers. brent -- "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman
Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:
> Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> in license war.
Good point.
> I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
> The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
> the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
> developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
> will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:
The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.
regards, tom lane
> This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the > point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished > to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners. > Perhaps something like this: > > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license > since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us. > Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the > GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the > concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past > contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore, > many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that > would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or > continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such > restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the > BSD license for the foreseeable future. Man, this text is getting longer. :-( Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork. Now, I don't want to do that, but I do think it is doable. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.
But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?
regards, tom lane
...
> Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
I agree that this is possible. I'd prefer not making a statement in the
FAQ regarding license justifications/alternatives at this time, because
it could be a long discussion with little gain.
Please note the source of this most recent unsolicited suggestion with
unsubstantiated reasoning and we will conclude that we have already
spent too much time on the subject for this go 'round. imho of course ;)
- Thomas
[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said: | Perhaps something like this: | | The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license | since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us. | Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the | GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the | concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past | contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore, | many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that | would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or | continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such | restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the | BSD license for the foreseeable future. +1 cheers. brent -- "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman
Brent Verner wrote: > > [2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said: > > | Perhaps something like this: > | > | The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license > | since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us. > | Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the > | GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the > | concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past > | contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore, > | many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that > | would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or > | continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such > | restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the > | BSD license for the foreseeable future. > > +1 Yep, lets go with this version. + Justin > > cheers. > brent > > -- > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions > > of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version > > _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD > > part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL > > cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is > > basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork. > > Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get > past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that > we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does > not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See > > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > parties under the terms of this License. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of. > > But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license > discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent > future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is > give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible. > Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible? I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that we don't want GPL. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ... On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote: > [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said: > > | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in > > | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I > | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What > | do people think of this summary: > > | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source > | (proprietary) restrictions. > > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage > in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long > as it doesn't contain any factual errors). > > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD > license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that > the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL > developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that > might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute > or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the > need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we > will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future. > > cheers. > brent > > -- > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html >
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the > > point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished > > to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners. > > Perhaps something like this: > > > > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license > > since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us. > > Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the > > GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the > > concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past > > contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore, > > many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that > > would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or > > continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such > > restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the > > BSD license for the foreseeable future. > > Man, this text is getting longer. :-( > > Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions > of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version > _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD > part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL > cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is > basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork. If someone wanted to fork and call it a new name, ya, its doable ...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions > > > of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version > > > _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD > > > part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL > > > cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is > > > basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork. > > > > Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get > > past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that > > we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does > > not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See > > > > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > parties under the terms of this License. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of. > > > > But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license > > discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent > > future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is > > give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible. > > Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible? > > I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that > we don't want GPL. Ya, but with your wording, you are suggesting that that desire may change in the future ...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. > The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the > need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD > license for the for-seeable future. GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as you wish" ...
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. It's an FAQ entry, not an exercise for a law student. > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote: > > > [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said: > > > > | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in > > > > | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I > > | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What > > | do people think of this summary: > > > > | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source > > | (proprietary) restrictions. > > > > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage > > in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long > > as it doesn't contain any factual errors). > > > > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD > > license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that > > the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL > > developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that > > might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute > > or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the > > need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we > > will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future. > > > > cheers. > > brent > > > > -- > > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are > > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough > > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > 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 ==========================================================================
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's an FAQ entry, not an exercise for a law student. > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote: > > > > > [2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said: > > > > > > | At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in > > > > > > | However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I > > > | would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What > > > | do people think of this summary: > > > > > > | The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source > > > | (proprietary) restrictions. > > > > > > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage > > > in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long > > > as it doesn't contain any factual errors). > > > > > > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD > > > license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that > > > the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL > > > developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that > > > might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute > > > or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the > > > need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we > > > will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future. > > > > > > cheers. > > > brent > > > > > > -- > > > "Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are > > > really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough > > > to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > > 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 > ========================================================================== > > > >
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:
> > Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
> > in license war.
>
> Good point.
>
> > I'd suggest something like the following (as long
> > as it doesn't contain any factual errors).
>
> > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
> > license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
> > the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
> > developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
> > might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
> > or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
> > need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
> > will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
> point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> Perhaps something like this:
>
> The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
> concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
> many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).
It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>> 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?
I like it too. Short & sweet.
Can we go back to work now? ;-)
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane writes: [...] > many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that > would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or > continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such > restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the > BSD license for the foreseeable future. If that is actually true, then "many PostgreSQL developers" are completely missing the point. (Or possibly the commercial entities are missing the point.) If commercial entity A writes code C, then A owns the copyright on C and A can relicense C in any way they want. In particular A can contribute C to a "community" GPL code base and can sell C in a closed-source product at the same time. For commercial entities, the main difference between a BSD license and the GPL is that they can add their own code and sell the result closed-source *without* having to effectively contribute it to the community sources. But in that case they're not actually "contributing", as you write, and the open project could care less. As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> > The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> > need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> > license for the for-seeable future.
>
> GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
> you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
> you wish" ...
Yupp, it's kinda "I am the only truth and you shall not have
any other licenses ...", IMHO a little selfish.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
"Keith G. Murphy" wrote: > > > It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing... > I see further down in the thread (which looks like another thread to my somewhat-broken mailreader), that the offending wording had already been removed/changed. I seem to have provoked an off-topic discussion (but not the flamewar I dreaded). Sorry I hadn't looked ahead and preempted it. But I'm glad that the inflammatory wording is gone.