Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

I've like the variations of the theme for this, especially the simplisty
of the one below. The only thing that may be adventagous to change is
to say:
"PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions"
rather than using the word "Many". However, as listed sounds fine to me.

Maybe this is confrontational, but does it make sense to give a list of
a few things wrong with the GPL? I'm unsure if that would be benfitial
or just confrontational, since it would sound like an attack against the
GPL license directly.

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 10:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the
> "reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no
> license changes are desired.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
> GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
> restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such
> restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its
> existing license.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned(dot)wolpert(at)knowledgenet(dot)com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45