Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

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
==========================================================================