> mlw wrote: [heavily edited]
>> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
>> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
>> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>> I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
>> it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
>> how anyone could think differently.
You're missing the point almost completely. We've been around on this
GPL-vs-BSD discussion many many many times before, and the discussion
always ends up at the same place: we aren't changing the license.
The two key reasons (IMHO) are:
1. The original code base is BSD. We do not have the right to
unilaterally relabel that code as GPL. Maybe we could try to say that
all additions/changes after a certain date are GPL, but that'd become a
hopeless mess very shortly; how would you keep track of what was which?
Not to mention the fact that a mixed-license project would not satisfy
GPL partisans anyway.
2. Since Postgres is a database, and the vast majority of uses for
databases are business-related, we have to have a license that
businesses will feel comfortable with. One aspect of that comfort is
that they be able to do things like building proprietary applications
atop the database. If we take a purist GPL approach, we'll just drive
away a lot of potential users and contributors. (I for one wouldn't be
here today, most likely, if Postgres had been GPL --- my then company
would not have gotten involved with it.)
I have nothing against GPL; it's appropriate for some things. But
it's not appropriate for *this* project, because of history and subject
matter. We've done just fine with the BSD license and I do not see a
reason to think that GPL would be an improvement.
regards, tom lane