The Yellow Brick Road

Reassurances notwithstanding, recent developments in the PostgreSQL
community still concern me. I understand Tom would like to postpone
this thread.

> We wanted to postpone the discussion until Great Bridge was out in
> the open and could allow Rusty Friddell, their counsel, to answer
> questions about his suggestions directly. (And just to defuse any
> fears beforehand, there will be no license changes without full
> discussion and consensus from the pghackers community. This
> decision is not core's to make, but the community's.)
- Tom Lane

I'm certainly interested in what Rusty has to say. But please don't ask
the PostgreSQL community to stop discussing this issue until Great
Bridge speaks. Sorry to sound cynical and jaded, but it seems an
ominous portent that we should be asked to keep our mouths shut until
Daddy Warbucks has his say.

---

> Yes. BSD-style licensing is clearly more acceptable to businesses
> than GPL-style, as the Postgres community understood all along. I
> think GB's choice of Postgres as the database they wanted to work
> with is not unrelated to that.
- Tom Lane

This is not clear at all. As evidenced by what? A more appropriate
question may be: what side of the business equation are you talking
about, the buyer or the seller? Great Bridge has indicated their intent
to keep _all_ source they develop completely open:

> We have no interest in any kind of proprietary fork. As far as code
> goes, everything we write will go straight back into the open source
> stew, for proper review by the Committed.
- Ned Lilly

I mean no offense to Ned, but while this statement sounds very
reassuring, and I'm sure he's sincere, as far as the law is concerned,
it has no legally binding significance whatsoever. That is what
licenses and copyrights are for.

So my question is: if you really mean what you say, why don't you
release PostgreSQL under the GPL? The situation at hand is exactly the
type of situation the GPL is intended to address - namely, to provide
assurance to the community at large that nobody obtains proprietary
ownership of source code.

Because a BSD-style license is more acceptable to business? The only
way I can see that a BSD-style license is more acceptable to business,
is if that business wants to reserve the right to obtain proprietary
ownership by simply extending the code. What other advantage is there?

---

I'm also concerned about how recent developments may affect the
PostgreSQL team financially. Core developers especially, but other
contributers as well.

> One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly
> fraction of core members working for the same company. With six
> people on core, probably about two working at the same company would
> be a reasonable limit.
- Tom Lane

What happens if a small fraction of the PostgreSQL team become
disproportionatly wealthy? When a couple of team members show up at the
annual PostgreSQL barbeque in new Lexus SUV's, and the rest rattle in in
rusty station wagons? When some team members kids go to good private
schools, and others are stuck in underperforming public school
districts? When the kids' college is paid for, vs. being indebted for
the rest of your life? When health care isn't an issue, vs. becoming an
omnipresent concern? When taking care of your elderly parents is easy,
vs. not even being able to afford a visit? You get the point.

I don't really expect anyone to speak openly about their financial
situation. It's really a private matter. But I can't help supposing
that should such a financial disparity arise withing the PostgreSQL
team, that it would have (unpleasant) repercussions.

---

I am extremely grateful to all those who have made PostgreSQL the
wonderful program that it is. In thanks, I feel like I'm pouring cold
water on your head.

I also mean no disrespect to Landmark. The weather channel has
lubricated many a conversation between me and my Grandmother.

I wish only the best to the PostgreSQL team, and to Landmark and it's
subsidiaries.

But whatever you do, please don't upset the dynamic that made PostgreSQL
what it is today.

-Ron Peterson-