Thread: RE: [HACKERS] Re: Appended a string of text to each line in a fil e
I'm sorry, but what exactly is the problem with GPL?
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes, Project-Manager | topsystem Systemhaus GmbH
meskes@topsystem.de | Europark A2, Adenauerstr. 20
meskes@debian.org | 52146 Wuerselen
Go SF49ers! Go Rhein Fire! | Tel: (+49) 2405/4670-44
Use Debian GNU/Linux! | Fax: (+49) 2405/4670-10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Hermit Hacker [SMTP:scrappy@hub.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 4:25 AM
> To: Henry Spencer
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Appended a string of text to each line
> in a file
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> > My only real competitor :-) right now appears to be the GNU rx
> package,
> > and I have heard enough grumbling about it that I hesitate to
> recommend
> > it for general use. It's faster but it has problems, is my
> impression;
> > I have not examined it closely.
>
> And...we wouldn't sully our code with a GNU license anyway :)
> We
> are being very very careful about that...
>
> Marc G. Fournier
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary:
> scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
> I'm sorry, but what exactly is the problem with GPL?
I can't speak for the PostgreSQL folks, who may have their own reasons,
but my take on it is simple: it creates complex legal obligations which
limit use of the software by their very existence. (Even if you consider
those obligations perfectly reasonable and are willing to abide by them,
your boss may disagree. Or the company lawyers may insist that you keep
detailed records of everything you do with the software, in case they ever
have to defend the company against a lawsuit alleging violation of the
GPL. Or upper management may decide that the expense of paying the
company lawyers to read the GPL and investigate its implications isn't
worthwhile, but you can't use the software without their okay, which they
aren't going to give without investigation.)
The GPL is a tool for people with an axe to grind. If all you want to do
is distribute software for free, a simpler licence (or even just placing
the software in the public domain) is preferable.
Henry Spencer
henry@zoo.toronto.edu
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Henry Spencer wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but what exactly is the problem with GPL?
>
> I can't speak for the PostgreSQL folks, who may have their own reasons,
> but my take on it is simple: it creates complex legal obligations which
> limit use of the software by their very existence.
Exactly!
> The GPL is a tool for people with an axe to grind. If all you want to do
> is distribute software for free, a simpler licence (or even just placing
> the software in the public domain) is preferable.
I believe, one thing further, that since we started off under the
Berkeley license, we can't change anyway (not that I would consider it
*looks around*):
/*
* Copyright (c) 1990, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> I believe, one thing further, that since we started off under the
> Berkeley license, we can't change anyway (not that I would consider it
> *looks around*)...
Well, the way I read it one could take and use the source code for any purpose
(including developing another product or set of source code with other
conditions) as long as the Berkeley conditions are met. Those conditions seem
to cover giving UCB some credit for having done the work, and protecting UCB
from liability resulting from use of software which they had once developed.
btw, the license terms in the Postgres95 docs are slightly different, but with
the same intent. As you point out, that license seems to suit us just fine :)
- Tom
> /*
> * Copyright (c) 1990, 1993
> * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> software
> * must display the following acknowledgement:
> * This product includes software developed by the University of
> * California, Berkeley and its contributors.