Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> ...
> > And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there.
>
> I understand that. My point is that we are dancing around trying to find
> acceptable wording for a line of explanation that simply should not be
> there in the first place. Why bother mentioning "many find GPL
> unacceptable", no matter what alternate phrasing is found, when the
> issue for everyone with the project can boil down to much simpler, more
> fundamental reasons peculiar to PostgreSQL itself:
>
> PostgreSQL was given to us by Berkeley with the BSD license,
> and that license has served us well.
>
> No need to explain acceptable vs unacceptable, no need to decide whether
> there are a few, some, many, or all developers feeling GPL is
> unacceptable, no need for any of that.
>
> I don't mean to be argumentative here (and hope I'm not) but it seems we
> are stretching to find wording for a possibly controversial area which
> is moot since there are other fundamental reasons for enjoying the
> license we have.

You are, but it's alright. What we're trying to head off is the
repeated "why not gpl" issue. By only saying that we like the bsd
license and plan on staying with it only invites more why's, as we've
experienced every time in the past, and the end result is we have to
explain which, of course, only invites more comments, why's, etc. This
simple explanation will *hopefully* put it to rest. There will be no
reason to ask why when that answer is already given.

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
==========================================================================