Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> > I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps
> > they need some education.
>
> Are you volunteering?
Of course. As the systems administrator for my company, I feel it's my
responsibility to inform the principals who run this company about
software licensing issues that may affect them. I would hope that
anyone with similar duties at any other company would feel the same way.
I would like to future proof any technology investments we make to the
greatest degree possible. If I say "let's build our project management
database using xyz", I would like to assure anyone buying into this
proposal that I have some confidence in the future direction xyz will
take.
The current licensing debate surrounding PostgreSQL has greatly
diminished my confidence in it's long term viability as an open source
project. I may be very wrong here, but I really don't feel like taking
unnecessary chances.
The best argument so far as to how a BSD style license will maintain
PostgreSQL's viability as an open source project is that if someone take
the code proprietary, someone else can fork the code and continue
development as an open source project.
This has happened in PostgreSQL's own history. How long did it take for
the project to get picked up again? How long did it take for the people
who picked it up to familiarize themselves with the code? How long did
it take before the community at large developed any confidence in the
project's viability? How much talent was lost? How many ideas were
lost?
I believe developers assurances about their desire to maintain
PostgreSQL as an open source project are sincere. But I am not going to
continue investing my time in PostgreSQL unless those assurances are
backed by contractually binding verbage.
________________________
Ron Peterson
rpeterson@yellowbank.com