On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
> > point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
> > to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
> > Perhaps something like this:
> >
> > The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
> > since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
> > Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
> > GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
> > concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
> > contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
> > many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> > would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> > continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> > restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
> > BSD license for the foreseeable future.
>
> Man, this text is getting longer. :-(
>
> Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
> of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
> _without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
> part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
> cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
> basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.
If someone wanted to fork and call it a new name, ya, its doable ...