Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>

From: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>, Jason Earl <jason.earl@simplot.com>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org>, alavoor <alavoor@yahoo.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-01-21T19:21:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > >         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.

I just hopped over to PHP, and here is thier explanation:

Q. Why is PHP 4 not dual-licensed under the GNU General Public License
(GPL) like PHP 3 was?

A. GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with
the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a
much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as
possible.