Re: License blurb (was: Release, 3rd draft)

On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:18:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > Many open-source licenses place serious restrictions on commercial use
> > of software. These licenses are often "viral" in nature, requiring that
> > any software built using the licensed software must use the same
> > open-source license. This means any product built using that open-source
> > software must be made open-source itself. PostgreSQL uses the <a
> > href='..'>BSD license</a>, which only requires that the licensed source
> > code maintain it's copywrite and licensing information. Other than
> > that, you are free to do whatever you want with the code, including
> > re-distribute it commercially.
>
> Too negative. We want to emphasize the positives of *our* license while not
> criticizing other people's.

One issue is that many people seem to equate the two, so I think it's
going to be difficult/impossible to not have some negative verbage about
other licenses. But, I'll give it a shot...

PostgreSQL uses the BSD license. Unlike many other open-source licenses,
code licensed under a BSD license is completely free for any use,
commercial or not. The only requirement is that the licensed code must
always maintain it's license and copyright information.

Maybe also a sentence about checking with legal before deciding on a
product (since that will always be a win for us), but I can't think of a
way to word it. The idea is to get people to actually look into both
licenses instead of believing the word on the street. It's tempting to
just say "compare our 1/4 page license to the multi-page licenses you'll
find elsewhere". :P
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461