Re: responses to licensing discussion

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
>> Is PostgreSQL Inc. have the same need than Landmark/Great Bridge
>> concerning this licence migration ?

> Nope ... this is purely a perceived problem by the Landmark/Great Bridge
> folk ... one that I can't count how many OSS projects out there
> don't/haven't felt a need for *shrug*

Au contraire --- we have had repeated discussions in the past about the
license, and quite a few folks have expressed concern that we need to
alter the pure Berkeley language we inherited. This particular proposal
is from Great Bridge and has some stuff in it that was never proposed
before, but please don't claim that there's not been any perceived
problem. There has been.

I'm not sold on adopting Great Bridge's proposal as-is, but this is a
fine opportunity to fix those concerns that have come up again and
again. We should do *something*, preferably something that looks
good to real lawyers (as many as we can get to look at the problem).

As Ned pointed out, you don't want lawyers hacking on the guts of
Postgres, and you shouldn't want hackers hacking on the license either.
We don't know what we're doing in that sphere.

regards, tom lane