The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions,
> GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times,
> and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a
> non-discussable issue" ...
I've declined commenting on this thread until now -- but this statement
bears amplification.
GPL is NOT the be-all end-all Free Software (in the FSF/GNU sense!)
license. There is room for more than one license -- just as there is
room for more than one OS, more than one Unix, more than one Free RDBMS,
more than one Free webserver, more than one scripting language, more
than one compiler system, more than one Linux distribution, more than
one BSD, and more than one CPU architecture.
Why make a square peg development group fit a round peg license? :-)
Use a round peg for round holes, and a square peg for square holes.
Choice of license for PostgreSQL is not negotiable. I don't say that as
an edict from Lamar Owen (after all, I am in no position to edict
anything :-)) -- I say that as a studied observation of the last times
this subject has come up.
I personally prefer GPL. But my personal preference and what is good
for the project are two different things. BSD is good for this project
with this group of developers -- and it should not change.
And, like any other open development effort, there will be missteps --
which missteps should, IMHO, be put behind us. No software is perfect;
no development team is, either.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11