Re: PostgreSQL & the BSD License

I'm confused here as to why pppl keep going to the "BSD license is
flawed" argument? The only "flaw" that I can see is that a) the copyright
ended '96 and b) it only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... all that is
being proposed *at this time* is to add in coverage for the period *since*
'96 and extend that coverage to include *all* developers, not just the
Univesrity of California ...

Now, a) is easily fixable by just extending the date to 2000, but that
still only covers "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA", and none of the actual
developers ...

If ppl feel that neither a) or b) above aren't considered flaws, then let
us leave well enough alone ...

The wording in the 'DEVELOPERS' section of what I sent out last night is a
little more verbose, so we could cut it down to be exactly the same as the
BSD one, and 'trim the fat' ... so that all we are "changing" is
"UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" to "DEVELOPERS", and leaving the rest of the
wording completely intact ... ?

My personal feeling is that if the BSD license itself was so flawed, there
are at least another dozen projects out there that deal with commercial
enterprises on a larger scale then we do that would have done changes also
... I don't want to change the wording, I would just like to see it
extended to cover the ppl that are actually doing development and not just
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ...

make sense? or are we just sitting here discussing changes to a license
that doesn't need changing?

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, John Daniels wrote:

> >On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > > > I would like to plug this in early next week, unless someone can
> > > > see something major that makes them feel uncomfortable ...
> > >
> > > What are you trying to do Marc, foreclose a full discussion? I
> > > think this is *way* premature.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >From the feeling I got from those that have posted to the lists, what
> >is in the one I posted last night is agreeable to *everyone*, both
> >American and non-American, since it doesn't change the gist of the BSD
> >license, it only extends the umbrella of warranty/liability over all
> >of us ...
> >
>
> IMO, it is difficult to say that this is a "BSD license" unless there is a
> general agreement by those who use the (current) BSD license to adopt it as
> *the* BSD license. I fear that unilaterally changing the license, even if
> that change is deemed necessary and correct, may cause unnecessary
> confusion, and tends toward a competitive rather than cooperative atmosphere
> for standard setting.
>
> If the BSD license is flawed, then most projects using it should logically
> want to change it along with everyone else. But without consulting
> with/working with other major BSD license users, it is possible that
> postgesql will face a situation where it will have to consider changing it's
> "PostgreSQL license" to a new "BSD" license because the other BSD-license
> users have established a standard license that adds to or modifies the
> "Postgres license".
>
> This comment is in line with several others that have voiced concern about
> "yet another license". It simply seems more productive to proactively build
> a consensus for a new standard by including other BSD license users in
> discussions sooner rather than later.
>
> Unless, of course, the license is so flawed that a new license needs to be
> implemented immediately, without a such a larger and inclusive discussion.
> Yet, the license has been flawed for years - and other BSD-license users are
> in the same boat - wouldn't it be in their best interest to adopt an interim
> license also?
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>

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