Обсуждение: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

> >         3) encourages BSD license usage
>
> And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
> you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
> up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
> with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
> camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
> to personal opinion.

I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather than
make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long ago.  We
_do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

> > >         3) encourages BSD license usage
> >
> > And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not
> > think you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not
> > keep coming up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite
> > vigorous debate with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and
> > respect for the GPL camp, I think the politics and religion of
> > license should be relegated to personal opinion.
>
> I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather
> than make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long
> ago.  We _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

Then why not simply try something like this:

        We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
        While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
        source" (proprietary) restrictions.  Programmers that would
        like to have their source code included in the official
        PostgreSQL distribution will need to license their code using
        a BSD style license.

This clearly sets the policy for inclusion of source code in the
official distribution without whacking the GPL hackers for their
preference in license.  Even the staunchest pro-GPL hacker would agree
that the GPL has "anti-'closed source' (proprietary) restrictions."

Jason

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > >         3) encourages BSD license usage
> >
> > And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
> > you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
> > up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
> > with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
> > camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
> > to personal opinion.
> 
> I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather than
> make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long ago.  We
> _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

I just hopped over to PHP, and here is thier explanation:

Q. Why is PHP 4 not dual-licensed under the GNU General Public License
(GPL) like PHP 3 was?

A. GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with
the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a
much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as
possible.