Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
> the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
> license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
> license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
> PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.
I doubt this is true at all. We could possibly specify GPL for *new*
code (eg, whole new source files) that we add to the tree, but we can't
unilaterally relicense the existing code. And can you usefully specify
a GPL license for individual patches added to a basically-BSD source file?
Isn't going to work.
In any case, the discussion has been had many times before and the
answer is not going to change. I like your idea of putting something in
the FAQ to try to stave off future queries. The wording you have is
okay as far as it goes, but I'd like to see it made perfectly crystal
clear that we *have* considered GPL and we are *not* interested in
hearing any more "why don't you switch to GPL" proposals. Deleting the
"currently" would be a start.
> We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
> The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
> (proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
> need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
> license for the for-seeable future.
regards, tom lane