On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 17:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com> writes:
> > > Also, I am a little confused by Tom's statement that we don't have the right
> > > to modify the license.
> >
> > I don't see what's confusing about it. Our implicit contract with
> > contributors (past and present) is that we'd distribute their work under
> > the terms of the same license they saw when they contributed. Altering
> > the license without their agreement is breaking faith.
> >
> > All of the arguments about license changes have been gone over in great
> > detail in the archives (I think the last major go-round on the topic was
> > in the summer of 2000). No one who has been around long enough to
> > remember those flame wars is interested in re-opening the topic. Not
> > even just to move a comma.
>
> What we could do is add a blurb on our web site or in the FAQ clarifying
> this issue.
>
Oh, you mean like this paragraph
"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."
Which you added to the FAQ damn near two years ago !?!
http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/FAQ.diff?r1=1.139&r2=1.140
Quite frankly I think the lawyer they spoke with was... well, this is a
family newsgroup so let's just say I don't feel his opinion is very
credible. It would have been very easy for them to indemnify themselves
had they wanted to, to not even try to sort this out speaks of some
other agenda on their part IMHO.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL