Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
>> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
>> >
>> > Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
>> > imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
>> > Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so.
>> > Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do
>> > it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code.
>>
>> I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is
>> only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed
>> something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code?
>
> We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a
> proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from
> doing the same.
>
The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software.
But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to
remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd
need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #