Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

just to curtail this while thread to a certain point ... switching the
license to GPL is *not* on the table, nor has it every been, nor will it
ever be ...

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Ron Peterson wrote:

> Ned,
>
> Thanks for inviting the community to participate in this discussion. I
> wonder, though, if you might like to invite the participation of a wider
> audience. While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about
> all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves
> the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest
> that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot.
>
> As for the particulars of your proposal, I'd like to suggest, and I see
> others agree, that it would still be premature to table the discussion
> of GPL vs. BSD style licensing. If for no other reason than if not now,
> when?
>
> There seem to be two primary objectives here: (1) protect contributers
> from liability. (2) maintain the code as open source.
>
> I don't really understand liability issues or how they relate to the GPL
> (or any other license for that matter). I'm certainly 100% in favor of
> protecting PostgreSQL developers from court claims, of course. So I'm
> not going to chime in about liability issues.
>
> One objection to the use of the GPL has been that it has never been
> tested in court. That may soon change. See
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/.
>
> Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more
> "free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone
> may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't
> anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition?
>
> > ...we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it
> > more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the
> > user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with
> > the code.
> -Ned Lilly
>
> To me, it's the difference between the freedom of anarchy, and the
> freedom afforded by good government. Licenses are inherently
> restrictive. That's the whole point of having them. This is true even
> for BSD style licenses. So the question is not "do you ask the users of
> your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The
> question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of
> your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is
> just navel gazing mumbo jumbo.
>
> I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community"
> prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how
> this conclusion was reached?
>
> > We've also found, through some rather extensive market
> > research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling
> > products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like
> > Mozilla, etc.
> -Ned Lilly
>
> I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps
> they need some education.
>
> I would also submit that that the manner in which a survey was conducted
> could greatly influence it's own results.
>
> Q: "Do you prefer a GPL or BSD style license?"
> A: "What's the difference?"
> Q: "A BSD style license gives you more flexibility in how you administer
> changes you might make to the software."
> A: "Well, then BSD of course."
>
> Nevermind that this same business might be running half of its back end
> services using GPL'd software.
>
> How about "Would you like to know that you can take advantage of
> contributions made to this software by anyone working on it worldwide?",
> or "Would you like a *guarantee* that the core development team won't
> duck tail and make you start paying for certain improvements?"
>
> I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intentions. I'm just saying that
> the only *guarantee* of good intentions is the license associated with
> the software.
>
> Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd
> software.
>
> -Ron-
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org