Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Ross Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>, Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>, alavoor <alavoor@yahoo.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-01-21T23:15:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:12:58PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > 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 is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people > > vote. > > Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect, > because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is > not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways. > > I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are > about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify > it as "FAQ" anyway. > The one thing that _does_ come up is not 'change your license to GPL' but "here's my GPLed code: can it get into the main tree?" I liked the version that mentioned 'contributors must BSD license to get it into the main tree' since that's the principle Q for people we care about: potential coders. Anyone else who wants to argue licenses can be safely ignored. Ross