Thread: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
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. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
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.
Not in this life time, but thanks for adding your 2 bits ... On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, 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. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >
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. You are a talented man with a knack for simplifying the imponderables. ;-)
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
mlw wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^
It is actually spelled "foreseeable".
--
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
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:04:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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? Truth is useful, even if unpleasant. Dave, happy with BSD. -- David Terrell | "the only part about medicinal marijuana that Prime Minister, Nebcorp | bothers me is that, when I started chemo, all of dbt@meat.net | my children and grandchildren told me they could http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | get some for me if I needed it." -mrw's grandfather
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
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > 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 This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't limit contribution at all. What's wrong with: The GPL contains restrictions which we do notwish to impose upon our users and developers. Why just "commercial entities"? Matthew.
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
Matthew Kirkwood wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > > > 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 > > This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't > limit contribution at all. What's wrong with: > > The GPL contains restrictions which we do not > wish to impose upon our users and developers. > > Why just "commercial entities"? Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more possibility for problems. One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL. Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and I don't want to do it, but there it is. An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of "current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That last sentence could also be removed completely. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change 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
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 >
Bruce Momjian wrote: <snip> > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the > need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > change it. Ok, how about : We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti "closed source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it. That has got to be about as plain and non-offensive as possible. :) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > -- > 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 > > ---------------------------(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
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 ...
Justin Clift wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > <snip> > > > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source > > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the > > need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > > change it. > > Ok, how about : > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source" > (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > change it. OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added. -- 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 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, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Matthew Kirkwood wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't > > limit contribution at all. What's wrong with: > > > > The GPL contains restrictions which we do not > > wish to impose upon our users and developers. > > > > Why just "commercial entities"? > > Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the > more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more > detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more > possibility for problems. > > One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current > license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL. > Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and > I don't want to do it, but there it is. > > An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of > "current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That > last sentence could also be removed completely. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the > need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > change it. This one is nice and short and to the point ... I like :)
Spoken like a true *BSD person. I'm on the board of the Open Source Initiative (current maintainer of the Open Source Definition). None of us would ever characterize the GPL as "anti-open source". To paraphrase Woody Allen (who quipped "the lamb may lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get very much sleep"), if you value the freedom to hack on source code, the GPL enables the lamb (an individual programmer) to lie down with the lion (large corporate interests who could take the code down a proprietary path) without losing sleep. Also, I don't see this as anti-closed source--just pro-programmer. M 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" ... > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > GPL also promotes open-source, ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ Spot the recipe for disaster :-) "While the GPL expresses many of our goals," > it has certain anti-closed source (proprietary) restrictions. Many > PostgreSQL developers question the need for such restrictions. We > like our BSD license and see no need to change it. I don't really like "Many PostgreSQL developers question the need for such restrictions." It may be that they do, but that's not the point; the point is that you don't want them, not that they are inherently inappropriate (whether you believe that or not). Matthew.
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Justin Clift wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > > > GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source > > > (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the > > > need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > > > change it. > > > > Ok, how about : > > > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source" > > (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > > change it. I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than flame-bait. BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um... how's 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. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it. *** I find it amazing I'm even concerned about this when I should be sleeping. :) 'nite + Justin > OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added. > > -- > 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 -- "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
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 ==========================================================================
I'd like to second Michael Tiemann's opinion: I respect the PG developers' right to use the BSD license, and I understand the BSD point of view. I just happen to disagree with it. I also support the idea of putting together an FAQ that is as simple and straight-forward as possible, so that no time is wasted on license flaming. If the final note could simply say that you've chosen the BSD license without bashing the GPL, we, GPL fans, would greatly appreciate it. Can't we all just get along? -Ben On 1/21/02 9:03 AM, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > 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" ...
> > > Ok, how about : > > > > > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the > > > GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source" > > > (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to > > > change it. > > I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than > flame-bait. BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um... how's 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. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it. I know this is a pain but I think it is worth getting this down so we have something concrete to point to when people ask. Actually, it is going much quicker and smoother than I thought. How about this? I have removed "questionable": (This is getting shorter each time.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change 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
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...
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" <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
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
How about something like this, avoiding any such BSD/GPL comparison: The PostgreSQL project was originated using the BSD license. Over the years many people have contributed code and effort understanding that their work would be licensed using the BSD license. The leaders of the PostgreSQL project, as an entity, do not believe that it would be right to change the implied agreement under which the entirety of the project was developed.
> 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. It's my opinion that the code is the developer's to do with as they please, and if they like the BSD license then no one really has a right to argue! If anything it allows users to do *more* than other licenses, the way I see it.. Bottom line is it's been decided and the mother's #1 reason of "because I said so" is good enough for me (and should be for everyone that's not a developer IMHO)! :-) -Mitch
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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. I agree with Peter here. There is no need to justify the license schema with PostgreSQL. However, I think people need to be clear (via FAQ, Readme, anything with a URL that we can point to people) so that when this question comes up, we simply direct them there and say, basically, "its a non-discusionable" -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
Keith G. Murphy wrote: > 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). Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software. Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD. Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to reflect reality. > It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing... Nor does it prevent one from distributing the same software under a different license, as TrollTech does. GPL if you build GPL'd software for Linux, a proprietary $$$ license in other cases - a situation accepted by none other than RMS (who is not my favorite person, either, though I personally like the GPL). -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Don Baccus wrote: > > Keith G. Murphy wrote: > > > 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). > > Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around > the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing > to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software. > > Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD. > > Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the > fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial > investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to > reflect reality. I think that has more to do with the fact that there is more visibility with Linux. While the BSD license was still tied up in confusion over who owned what (AT&T vs Berkeley) people started to contribute to GNU. Linux seemed to be the first project with both. I don't think the commercial word cared if it was a FREE-BSD OS or FREE-GNU OS license, just that it was free and Linux seems to be (as far as features go), BSD + more. The GNU license discourages vertical application vendors from contributing as they have to give away the source and expertise. I have no problem with free source code. I do have a problem of having to implement some source code that belongs to a customer and they consider their database part of their competitive advantage. By having to give away the source, they tell their competitors how to export from their database. This does discourage commercial work where the database and how you access it is confidential. One advantage of PostgreSQL is that you can use it for your customers - and THEY own the paid for source code. The BSD license does not keep them from contributing, but it allows them not have to when they can't give it away. GPL is great for some things, but not for databases.
Attachment
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 16:34, Don Baccus wrote: > Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around > the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing > to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software. > > Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD. I'm not sure that this is because of license issues with GPL versus BSD. Oracle's applications on Linux are released with a propritary license... that runs on a (for the most part) GPL'd OS. IBM does release some code under GPL, and tends not to under BSD, but also has applications that run on Linux that are propritary license. Yes, both Oracle and IBM (and Sun for that fact) support Linux more than xxxBSD as operating systems, and they are more likely to release code under GPL (Sun with OpenOffice, etc) but their support of Linux is more market driven, not license driven. ( -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
Doug Royer wrote: > The GNU license discourages vertical application vendors from > contributing as they have to give away the source and expertise. Only if they actually change the source and distribute those changes. You can take Oracle's approach, i.e. work with the Linux kernel/library folks in order to get features you want (raw I/O), then happily run your application on top of it. They could've done the work themselves, released that to the Linux world under the GNU license, and still happily distributeOracle and the tools that come with Oracle (slowly being rolled into Linux space) in closed an proprietary form. > I have no problem with free source code. I do have a problem > of having to implement some source code that belongs to a customer > and they consider their database part of their competitive advantage. > By having to give away the source, they tell their competitors > how to export from their database. This does discourage commercial > work where the database and how you access it is confidential. > > One advantage of PostgreSQL is that you can use it for your > customers - and THEY own the paid for source code. If your customers aren't releasing what they paid for, they don't have to turn it back. You only have to turn the source back if you *release* your changes. OpenACS is GPL'd and about a half-dozen (growing towards a dozen, actually) small companies do custom client db-backed websites using Oracle and PG. The custom code we create for an individual customer's site remains with that customer, if they prefer. There's no GPL problem at all. (We encourage release back to the community, of course, as a half-dozen *small* consulting shops cooperating on making our toolkit robust and featureful we benefit when we can share work our clients pay for). The GPL protects us against a party wrapping everything up, extending it, and offering an improved proprietary version and turning around and trying to put our small firms out of business. OK, dot-com mania is over and the odds of someone doing that are minimal. My point though is that far from being "communist" the GPL gives us a bit more control over the code, which helps satisfy our *capitalist* endeavors. > The BSD license does not keep them from contributing, but it allows > them not have to when they can't give it away. GPL is great for > some things, but not for databases. There's no reason why the client library, for instance, couldn't be LGPL'd, removing this problem. I'm not arguing that PG should switch - the BSD's a *fine* license. I don't want anyone to misunderstand my feelings on this. Clearly the BSD doesn't encumber the code and for those folks who are comfortable with this, the more power to them. But I keep reading interpretations of the GPL and its effects here that are far removed from the real world. Making a statement knocking the GPL in ways that show a misunderstanding of how the license works in practice won't do much to keep this subject from coming up periodically. -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Don Baccus wrote: > OpenACS is GPL'd ... I should point out that we inherited GPL'd code, thus "which license" isn't an issue. If someone asks me why we don't use the BSD license I have a very simple answer for them. Which should be the case with PG. The original authors released it under the Berkely license and "which license" shouldn't be an issue. I still don't understand why more needs to be said. If people are too clueless to understand this, let them remain clueless and ignore them. IMHO, that is. -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Ned Wolpert wrote: > On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 16:34, Don Baccus wrote: > >>Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around >>the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing >>to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software. >> >>Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD. >> > > I'm not sure that this is because of license issues with GPL versus BSD. I wasn't implying this. I simply pointed out that the supposed disincentive to commercial participation that the GPL brings to the table is fantasy. > Oracle's applications on Linux are released with a propritary license... > that runs on a (for the most part) GPL'd OS. Right. No viral effect, nope, the LGPL was developed precisely to make this point clear though it can be argued it wasn't necessary. Nothing wrong with being precise and up-front with what is thought to be OK or not, though. > Yes, both Oracle and IBM (and Sun for that fact) support Linux more than > xxxBSD as operating systems, and they are more likely to release code > under GPL (Sun with OpenOffice, etc) but their support of Linux is more > market driven, not license driven. ( Which wasn't my point, see above. There's no license disincentive. I didn't argue that there's a license *incentive* working in the GPL's favor. Though now that you mention it, there might be - IBM may be more willing to release code under the GPL because they know that a competitor will have to release improvements under the GPL, rather than suck in IBM's stuff as the basis for a proprietary product. When you're tackling Microsoft that's something to consider, given that they've incorporated BSD-licensed code into windows in the past. -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
On Monday 21 January 2002 09:41 pm, Don Baccus wrote: > Which should be the case with PG. The original authors released it > under the Berkely license and "which license" shouldn't be an issue. I > still don't understand why more needs to be said. If people are too > clueless to understand this, let them remain clueless and ignore them. And we must consider the source of this last 'cannonade'. After all, the laws of physics apply to software! (;-)). Personally, I don't think our FAQ list should address this issue at all. PostgreSQL is BSD licensed. And that's just that. However, if the majority thinks it best to point out the reasons, the smaller, simpler, and lowest flashpoint solution should be taken. The GPL has its adherents, advantages, and disadvantages. The BSD license likewise. Mutual respect amongst the parties should be followed, IMHO. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Ben Adida wrote: > I also support the idea of putting together an FAQ that is as simple and > straight-forward as possible, so that no time is wasted on license flaming. > If the final note could simply say that you've chosen the BSD license > without bashing the GPL, we, GPL fans, would greatly appreciate it. Why not just say that PG was originally developed at Berkeley, and released by them under the BSD licence? You could simply point out that PG has flourished as a project releasing code under that license, it ain't broke, and there ain't anything to fix. In other words, stay neutral on the "which is best" issue and point out the simple historical truth. > Can't we all just get along? Ask the Palestinians and Israelis. Or the Serbs and Bosnians. Or Microsoft and the rest of the software industry. The whole BSD/GPL issue's pretty trite, when you think about it. -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> Why not just say that PG was originally developed at Berkeley, and
> released by them under the BSD licence? You could simply point out that
> PG has flourished as a project releasing code under that license, it
> ain't broke, and there ain't anything to fix.
Y'know, this has got a lot of merit to it.
See also my reply to Tom Lockhart. We've seen the "why isn't PG under
GPL" question often enough that it clearly merits a FAQ entry. The
purpose of a FAQ entry is to save time for both askers and answerers.
Potential askers should not be left with the illusion that they might
change the already-thoroughly-considered decision by asking Yet One More
Time. Ye weary answerers have other things to do than respond Yet One
More Time. If we make a FAQ entry, the one thing I require of it is
that it be absolutely, pellucidly, crystal clear that there is not scope
for more discussion. "It ain't broke and we aren't gonna fix it" seems
to meet the need admirably.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 19:32, Don Baccus wrote: > Which wasn't my point, see above. There's no license disincentive. I > didn't argue that there's a license *incentive* working in the GPL's favor. From what you were saying, it sounded like you were comparing releasing products on Linux vs. xxxBSD was related to how the OS's were licensed. Now I understand that you weren't meaning to say that. -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
"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.
Hello, alavoor! On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:03:41PM -0800, you wrote: > Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source > products. And first case MySQL vs Gemini will show up it's unusability in real world. -- NEVE-RIPE