From: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jason Earl <jason(dot)earl(at)simplot(dot)com>, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, alavoor <alavoor(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Date: | 2002-01-21 17:50:20 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.40.0201211242590.74942-100000@paprika.michvhf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >
> > > I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
> > > the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
> > > to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
> > > the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
> > > that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
> > > person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
> > > thereafter, and it just goes around ...
> > >
> > > if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
> > > is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...
> >
> > But Vince's text is below. It starts with "Many". I merely grafted his
> > text after my opening text:
> >
> > Many PostgreSQL developers past and present are uncomfortable with
> > restrictions imposed by the GPL. The PostgreSQL project always has
> > and will continue to remain under the BSD license alone.
>
> Then I disagree with Vince's for same reason :) Unless ... add in
> something that implies that without unanimous consent of all developers (a
> near impossible task), it can't be cahnged?
See my previous comment on "many" but if you still disagree, how about
this:
Without the unanimous consent of all of the developers and contributors,
the PostgreSQL license cannot be changed, modified or added to.
Gives no reasons, invites debate from both factions, won't put it to
bed. Lemme think on this one a bit, I may still come up with something
everyone can stomach without being too wordy or ambiguous.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc Munro | 2002-01-21 18:00:31 | Re: row based security ... was Different views with same name for |
Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-01-21 17:41:23 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-01-21 18:00:50 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-21 17:49:38 | Re: pltlc and pltlcu problems |