Thread: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
mlw wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
> > > or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
> > > Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
> > > unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
> > > was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
> > > restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
> > > uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
> > > that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
> > > would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
> > > of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
> > > of those that prefer BSD.
> >
> > Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
> > should say that in there.
>
> Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to
> just say it is counter to policy?
>
> I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment
> both camps have to their license.
>
> I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites
> debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for
> all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will
> remain as it always has.
This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back
to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an
old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL,
which I don't think is true, or at least not certain.
We need something that:
1) quells debate
2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have
3) encourages BSD license usage
Basically, we need some wording that no only quells debate, but also
paints BSD as a favorable license that people should like and use. We
have people contributing modules in /contrib, and some of them are
GPL'ing them because we don't have a statement about our license and why
we are proud of it. If we don't have such a statement, it is hard to
encourage people to contribute new modules under BSD rather than GPL.
No wording is going to be perfect, but I do believe we need to have a
positive statement of BSD in that paragraph and how it can be seen as
prefereable to 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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > mlw wrote: > > I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites > > debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for > > all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will > > remain as it always has. > > This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back > to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an > old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL, > which I don't think is true, or at least not certain. > > We need something that: > > 1) quells debate Yes, this is important. > 2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have Ok, that's good, I personally see strengths in both licenses. > 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.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > mlw wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may > > > > or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from > > > > Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's > > > > unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it > > > > was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its > > > > restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers" > > > > uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about > > > > that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that > > > > would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds > > > > of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds > > > > of those that prefer BSD. > > > > > > Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we > > > should say that in there. > > > > Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to > > just say it is counter to policy? > > > > I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment > > both camps have to their license. > > > > I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites > > debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for > > all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will > > remain as it always has. > > This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back > to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an > old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL, > which I don't think is true, or at least not certain. > > We need something that: > > 1) quells debate > 2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have > 3) encourages BSD license usage > > Basically, we need some wording that no only quells debate, but also > paints BSD as a favorable license that people should like and use. We > have people contributing modules in /contrib, and some of them are > GPL'ing them because we don't have a statement about our license and why > we are proud of it. If we don't have such a statement, it is hard to > encourage people to contribute new modules under BSD rather than GPL. > > No wording is going to be perfect, but I do believe we need to have a > positive statement of BSD in that paragraph and how it can be seen as > prefereable to GPL. > > Between this and Marc's comment, I think I can come up with the right wording. Give me a bit. 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 ==========================================================================