Re: [ANNOUNCE] Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

Ned Lilly wrote:
> 
> > Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland.  Maryland has
> > an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will
> > only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state.
> > Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not require
> > a connection with the state and thereby gives somewhat greater
> > assurance that UCITA will apply to all Postgres-related dealings,
> > wherever they occur.

Not here in Scotland, they won't. If people in the United States feel
that United States law prevents them contributing to Open Source
projects, that is a local problem which should be addressed locally - by
lobbying their representatives to change the law.

> >  The fact that Great Bridge is based in
> > Virginia is really a complete coincidence.

I was initially agnostic regarding Great Bridge's involvement. Now I am
not so sure.

I would regard any variation from one of the Big Two open source
licences an extremely retrograde step -- the more different licences
there are out there, the more confusion there is, and the more room
there is for sleight of hand like the soi-disant 'open' Motif licence.
That's why my company uses the exact wording of the BSD licence for our
products; if we were to tighten up at all it would be to adopt the GPL.
If there is to be any change to the BSD licence currently used for
Postgres I would suggest it be limited to:

s/\(University of California\)/\1 and the developers listed in the
HISTORY file/g

Sincerely

Simon Brooke

-- 
Simon Brooke, Technical Director, Weft Technology Ltd --
http://www.weft.co.uk/

	the weft is not just what binds the web: it is what makes it a web