Re: The Yellow Brick Road

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

Only regarding details of a proposed license change. You aren't asking
about that specifically, so here goes... ;)

Oh, to just touch on the issue: the GB-sponsored proposal is intended
to clarify the intent of the BSD license. It does not fundamentally
change it, and should be evaluated on whether it reinforces your
understanding of the existing license. If it doesn't, then the wording
will need to be changed. It will be short and sweet, and will include
all of the words of the current license.

But please, let's not get into specifics beyond that until we all see
it and have something detailed to discuss.

> 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.

That wasn't the intent, but I (and Tom, and everyone else) realize
that is how it might sound. Let's start talking...

> > 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.
> 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.
> 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.

Right.

> 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.

We have had extensive discussions of BSD vs GPL in the context of Open
Source software on the -hackers mailing list in the past (and I'm sure
on other lists too; I tend to live on -hackers so remember those). And
the consensus is that we could go around in circles forever (been
there, done that ;) on BSD vs GPL, since they both have strong points.

The tie-breaker is that Postgres was written at Berkeley, came with a
fully-formed BSD license, and so we will leave it as that in honor of
the UCB achievements and contributions (OK, I made up that last part).

> 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?

An "advantage" mentioned by others is that the BSD-style license makes
it difficult to *inadvertently* violate the license, which means a
business can keep its nose clean even if an employee makes a mistake.

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

Yes, that is a concern. As you might guess, the approach by Great
Bridge caused *lots* of discussion and opened new areas of possible
conflict and disagreement among the steering committee. And this will
continue to be a possible problem.

We are trying very hard to "Do the Right Thing" here, and that
includes balancing personal decisions and choices against continuing
involvement with Postgres as an avocation (used to be a hobby, but I
hope you'll agree that when one spends several hours a day for > 3
years it has gone beyond a hobby ;)

> > 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.
> What happens if ...

All valid concerns. These will be continuing issues for each of us.
otoh we each have been free to do what we could with Postgres until
now, and it has been pointed out by others that there are *already*
people using Postgres and even building businesses around this tool.
So GB just brings that into focus by having a "big gun" jump into the
fray, and we'll have to see if they can follow through on their plans
to build a successful business.

> 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.

Thanks. And we need a shower every once in a while ;)

> 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.

That last point is in fact the dominant topic in discussions among the
steering committee regarding the GB announcement. We *think* that
Postgres can withstand stresses that will come up, but the "dynamic"
is something we realize we have (slowly realized, to be sure) and are
not certain how we got it (I think a lucky coincidence of people,
timing, and Postgres code). We do not want it to be lost, and each of
us is committed to doing whatever it takes, perhaps -- but not
certainly -- short of hari-kari, to keep it.

Regards.

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California