Thread: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

> >         3) encourages BSD license usage
>
> And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
> you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
> up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
> with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
> camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
> to personal opinion.

I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather than
make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long ago.  We
_do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

--
  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:

> > >         3) encourages BSD license usage
> >
> > And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not
> > think you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not
> > keep coming up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite
> > vigorous debate with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and
> > respect for the GPL camp, I think the politics and religion of
> > license should be relegated to personal opinion.
>
> I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather
> than make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long
> ago.  We _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

Then why not simply try something like this:

        We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
        While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
        source" (proprietary) restrictions.  Programmers that would
        like to have their source code included in the official
        PostgreSQL distribution will need to license their code using
        a BSD style license.

This clearly sets the policy for inclusion of source code in the
official distribution without whacking the GPL hackers for their
preference in license.  Even the staunchest pro-GPL hacker would agree
that the GPL has "anti-'closed source' (proprietary) restrictions."

Jason

I'm not replying to anyone in particular, and I'm certainly no lawyer nor
an expert on either license, but why do you have to give any reasons at
all?  Why can't you just say "for a variety of reasons postgresql is using
the BSD licence and it is going to stay that way".

I don't see a need to tell people why you aren't going to switch, nor to
even talk about the GPL at all... anything you say will upset someone and
they'll bring it up again...

I do like the bit about contributed code needing to be under the BSD
license as that's something that isn't answered.

just my 2 cents...

-philip

On 21 Jan 2002, Jason Earl wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
> > > >         3) encourages BSD license usage
> > >
> > > And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not
> > > think you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not
> > > keep coming up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite
> > > vigorous debate with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and
> > > respect for the GPL camp, I think the politics and religion of
> > > license should be relegated to personal opinion.
> >
> > I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather
> > than make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long
> > ago.  We _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.
>
> Then why not simply try something like this:
>
>         We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
>         While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
>         source" (proprietary) restrictions.  Programmers that would
>         like to have their source code included in the official
>         PostgreSQL distribution will need to license their code using
>         a BSD style license.
>
> This clearly sets the policy for inclusion of source code in the
> official distribution without whacking the GPL hackers for their
> preference in license.  Even the staunchest pro-GPL hacker would agree
> that the GPL has "anti-'closed source' (proprietary) restrictions."
>
> Jason
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>