Thread: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
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
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
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
Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. Much better. I personally think that mentioning the historical connection (i.e. code developed at Berkeley, released under BSD) would help quelch the "why not change?" questions. At least I think it makes a simple answer to such questions. If someone doesn't think that it is important to respect the license under which theearly developers released their code, that's a clue that they're not clueful enough to bother talking to, isn't it? -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org
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 Tue, 2002-01-22 at 08:59, Don Baccus wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > 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. > Works for me. Can a vote be cast and we be done with it? -- Virtually, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
> 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
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