Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201211128470.687-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: [...] > many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that > would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or > continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such > restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the > BSD license for the foreseeable future. If that is actually true, then "many PostgreSQL developers" are completely missing the point. (Or possibly the commercial entities are missing the point.) If commercial entity A writes code C, then A owns the copyright on C and A can relicense C in any way they want. In particular A can contribute C to a "community" GPL code base and can sell C in a closed-source product at the same time. For commercial entities, the main difference between a BSD license and the GPL is that they can add their own code and sell the result closed-source *without* having to effectively contribute it to the community sources. But in that case they're not actually "contributing", as you write, and the open project could care less. As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: