Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility

Bill Studenmund writes:

> > If we ask each of the authors (there doesn't seem to be very many) of
> > these GPL'd modules to please either change to BSD or to grant
> > PostgreSQL a special BSD licensed version, and they agree, would we have
> > a problem still?
>
> Would such a special BSD licensed version be usable by all? One of the
> nice things about the BSD license is that a company can come along and
> build products based off of it. If there is a special exception given to
> Postgres, would it apply to such companies coming along and using the
> code? If not, is it really that much better than the code being GPL'd?

Actually, I have a mildly amusing theory about this:

Open-source licenses are mainly about what you can distribute and how. So
if party A gives party B a "special exception" to the license of product P
produced by A, then A has really lost all control, because B now has been
given the right to distribute P under open-source terms.

Concrete case: The config.guess script contained in the PostgreSQL source
tree contains this notice:

# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

Since the premise of this condition is fulfilled, we may include
config.guess under the BSD license. The BSD license says, "Permission to
use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for
any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby
granted", which means that *anyone* obtaining a copy of the PostgreSQL
source tree can take the config.guess and redistribute it under
BSD-compatible terms.

So, exceptions work, but just not the way the grantor and the recipient
think.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net