Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
> limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:
>
> The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
> wish to impose upon our users and developers.
>
> Why just "commercial entities"?
Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more
detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
possibility for problems.
One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current
license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
I don't want to do it, but there it is.
An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of
"current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That
last sentence could also be removed completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026