Thread: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
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. -- 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
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
As one of those who contributed my $.02 to PostgreSQL, I think short is
sweet.
'tis got my vote.
--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no license changes are desired. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its existing license. -- 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 appreciate everyone chiming on on this discussion. I know it isn't fun, but once we get agreeable wording, it is something we can point to that will give clarity to others asking similar questions. -- 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:
> 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.
My 2 cents,
Jason Earl
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
I like it. It reduces it to the bottom line "we've been
there, discussed that, forget it".
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
Bruce Momjian writes: > > > 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. Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect, because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways. I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify it as "FAQ" anyway. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the > "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no > license changes are desired. Confrontational. Too wordy. Invites debate. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) > restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such > restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its > existing license. > > 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 ==========================================================================
OK, I have worked with Vince, our webmaster, to merge our two versions into one paragraph that everyone, hopefully, will like. It is below. It would be added to the bottom of FAQ item 1.2: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. -- 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 wrote: > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, BSD and GPL licences don't have similar goals. You'll get a lot of mail saying this, if you publish such a phrase. Just say BSD is the licence used by PostgreSQL. Let people make their own idea of why and for what things are the way they are. This way, it'll be *way* much ecological. I, for instance, learned to accept the fact that PG is BSD-licensed, which also helped me understand the nature of BSD. But it took time. It is not suitable for a FAQ. I remember a very enlightening sentence months ago in this list, which said the intention behind the licencing scheme was "do whatever you want with this software, but do it under your own responsibility, don't blame the authors" Regards, Haroldo.
> The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
> imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
> such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.
If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere
in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested,
non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like:
Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license
from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution
is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license.
Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm
not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I
am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which
have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen
tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough
for me ;)
- Thomas
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > > GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions > > imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no > > such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > > If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere > in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested, > non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like: > > Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license > from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution > is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license. > > Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm > not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I > am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which > have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen > tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough > for me ;) Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. 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, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.
Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at
least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current
arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum?
I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on
-hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently...
- Thomas
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. > > Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at > least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current > arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum? Current wording proposal which is a mix from several people: The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on > -hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently... Not sure who added general but I did not remove it. -- 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
> The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
> imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
> such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.
*I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present
company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been
satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves
Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine.
I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
great licenses in the history of open software. So why are we having to
justify it?
- Thomas
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
> great licenses in the history of open software.
Agreed entirely.
> So why are we having to justify it?
We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that
might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question.
FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this
issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry.
Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been
discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion;
now go away" ...
regards, tom lane
I think it's necessary, just looking at my mailbox :). Anyone who wants a GPL version of Postgresql can fork off. Cheerio, Link. At 03:24 AM 22-01-2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes: >> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the >> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the >> great licenses in the history of open software. > >Agreed entirely. > >> So why are we having to justify it? > >We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that >might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question. >FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this >issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry. > >Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been >discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion; >now go away" ... > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it. > > Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at > least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current > arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum? Reread what?! The same message you quoted and I responded to! > I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on > -hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently... 'cuze that's how it started and noone changed it. 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 Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the > > GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions > > imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no > > such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it. > > *I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present > company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been > satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves > Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine. And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there. 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 ==========================================================================
...
> And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there.
I understand that. My point is that we are dancing around trying to find
acceptable wording for a line of explanation that simply should not be
there in the first place. Why bother mentioning "many find GPL
unacceptable", no matter what alternate phrasing is found, when the
issue for everyone with the project can boil down to much simpler, more
fundamental reasons peculiar to PostgreSQL itself:
PostgreSQL was given to us by Berkeley with the BSD license,
and that license has served us well.
No need to explain acceptable vs unacceptable, no need to decide whether
there are a few, some, many, or all developers feeling GPL is
unacceptable, no need for any of that.
I don't mean to be argumentative here (and hope I'm not) but it seems we
are stretching to find wording for a possibly controversial area which
is moot since there are other fundamental reasons for enjoying the
license we have.
- Thomas
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there. > > I understand that. My point is that we are dancing around trying to find > acceptable wording for a line of explanation that simply should not be > there in the first place. Why bother mentioning "many find GPL > unacceptable", no matter what alternate phrasing is found, when the > issue for everyone with the project can boil down to much simpler, more > fundamental reasons peculiar to PostgreSQL itself: > > PostgreSQL was given to us by Berkeley with the BSD license, > and that license has served us well. > > No need to explain acceptable vs unacceptable, no need to decide whether > there are a few, some, many, or all developers feeling GPL is > unacceptable, no need for any of that. > > I don't mean to be argumentative here (and hope I'm not) but it seems we > are stretching to find wording for a possibly controversial area which > is moot since there are other fundamental reasons for enjoying the > license we have. You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no reason to ask why when that answer is already given. 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 ==========================================================================
...
> You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the
> repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd
> license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've
> experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to
> explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This
> simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no
> reason to ask why when that answer is already given.
Hmm. But it isn't a simple explanation, it invites controversy and
argument, and it isn't necessary. I appreciate your efforts to find some
other phrasing while still addressing "why don't we switch?", but imho
that line of explanation just shouldn't be there, period.
Let's get back to the FAQ issue. There are two questions which might be
asked and which might be included in a FAQ:
1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license?
A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the
BSD license. That license has served us well over many years.
2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
A: See (1)
- Thomas
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > ... > > You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the > > repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd > > license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've > > experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to > > explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This > > simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no > > reason to ask why when that answer is already given. > > Hmm. But it isn't a simple explanation, it invites controversy and > argument, and it isn't necessary. I appreciate your efforts to find some > other phrasing while still addressing "why don't we switch?", but imho > that line of explanation just shouldn't be there, period. > > Let's get back to the FAQ issue. There are two questions which might be > asked and which might be included in a FAQ: > > 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license? > A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the > BSD license. That license has served us well over many years. > > 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license? > A: See (1) It's worth a try if you actually think it'll work, but as many times as I've seen it come up I seriously doubt #2 will settle it and the complaints of trying to sidestep the issue will be the new platform for those wanting it changed. 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 ==========================================================================
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change
> their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL.
Huh? We're not debating it --- no one in this thread is suggesting that
the license be changed. We're trying to formulate a FAQ entry that
will prevent people from bringing the subject up again in the future.
I think the hard part here is to word the entry to make it clear that
the decision is final, without annoying anyone so much that we end up
creating flamewars instead of preventing 'em.
regards, tom lane
I am starting to agree with Thomas and others --- why mention the GPL at all. How about this. (Again to appear at the bottom of FAQ item 1.2): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no intention of changing it. -- 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
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:
> 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license?
> A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the
> BSD license. That license has served us well over many years.
> 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
> A: See (1)
Not bad, but I'd add one more sentence:
2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
A: See (1). It would be very difficult to change licenses,
and we see no need to.
regards, tom lane
> 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
> A: See (1). It would be very difficult to change licenses,
> and we see no need to.
Yup, that works for me :)
- Thomas
Hi all,
I have an addition for it :
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license?
> > A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the
> > BSD license. That license has served us well over many years.
> >
> > 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
> > A: See (1)
3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just
add the GPL to PostgreSQL?
A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people
feel at the time.
Probably flamed.
And probably with enthusiasm. :)
Don't do it.
+ Justin
>
> It's worth a try if you actually think it'll work, but as many times as
> I've seen it come up I seriously doubt #2 will settle it and the
> complaints of trying to sidestep the issue will be the new platform for
> those wanting it changed.
>
> 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
> ==========================================================================
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.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
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes: > ... > > You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the > > repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd > > license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've > > experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to > > explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This > > simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no > > reason to ask why when that answer is already given. > > Hmm. But it isn't a simple explanation, it invites controversy and > argument, and it isn't necessary. I appreciate your efforts to find some > other phrasing while still addressing "why don't we switch?", but imho > that line of explanation just shouldn't be there, period. > > Let's get back to the FAQ issue. There are two questions which might be > asked and which might be included in a FAQ: > > 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license? > A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the > BSD license. That license has served us well over many years. > > 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license? > A: See (1) I like this one. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > Hi all, > > I have an addition for it : > > Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license? > > > A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the > > > BSD license. That license has served us well over many years. > > > > > > 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license? > > > A: See (1) > > 3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just > add the GPL to PostgreSQL? > A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people > feel at the time. > > Probably flamed. > > And probably with enthusiasm. :) > > Don't do it. I'm thinking we should just use Lincoln's verbage and be done with it. 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 ==========================================================================
...
> And probably with enthusiasm. :)
:)
- Thomas
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am starting to agree with Thomas and others --- why mention the GPL at > all. How about this. (Again to appear at the bottom of FAQ item 1.2): > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no > restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no > intention of changing it. OK, no one is violently ill at the above wording so I will add it to the bottom of FAQ item 1.2 until some better wording comes along. :-) -- 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
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have an addition for it : > > > > Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license? > > > > A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the > > > > BSD license. That license has served us well over many years. > > > > > > > > 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license? > > > > A: See (1) > > > > 3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just > > add the GPL to PostgreSQL? > > A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people > > feel at the time. > > > > Probably flamed. > > > > And probably with enthusiasm. :) > > > > Don't do it. > > I'm thinking we should just use Lincoln's verbage and be done > with it. I wasn't serious. :) + Justin > > 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 > ========================================================================== -- "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