On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Martin A. Marques wrote:
> On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> > > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
> > > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
> > > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
> > > allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations.
> > >
> > > It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction.
> > >
> > > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
> >
> > I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related
> > to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things:
> >
> > 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5
> >
> > 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com,
> > not by PG, Inc.
>
> Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the BSD?
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" ...