Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > The fundamental issue is
> > that the user does not have the same licensing rights as the company.
> > In fact the company _owns_ rights to the code not given to users, so
> > contributions have to be owned by the company too.
>
> No they don't. The developer can give a sub license that grants broad
> reusability rights. It happens all the time in the closed source world.
Right, they have to give you a license for rights they don't have. I
didn't mean they gave up their own rights.
> The above does not require that the person contributing give up their
> rights to the code, it does however allow the company doing the primary
> development to relicense the code as they see fit.
>
> > You have get approval from the users to release their changes under a
> > different license than the user who is using the software.
>
> Which can then be sublicensed.
Right.
> >
> > In the PostgreSQL case, the users and the community have the same rights
> > to the code --- they are equals, which is not the case in your proposal.
>
>
> This point has some validity although I think the whole equals think is
> a little inflammatory. It is not our intent to harm or make less any
> community contribution.
Well, who wants to give someone rights to their work when they have not
received such rights to the rest of the code? Few do. Ask MySQL. Ask
Sun about Solaris. Ask MS about shared source. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073