Re: PostgreSQL License

On 9/18/19 11:43 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:35 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 9/18/19 8:26 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:55 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com
>> <mailto:ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/18/19 6:03 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com
>>> <mailto:ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Charging for *installing* PostgreSQL is not the same as
>>> charging for PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> Bottom line: you charge for *services**you provide* not for
>>> software that other people provide.
>>>
>>> That's just really not true.  There is nothing that prohibits
>>> you from selling Postgresql.  I mean, it's not a great business
>>> model because you can get it for free, but there's nothing that
>>> stops you from doing it.
>>
>> Quoting Adrian Klaver in this thread from about eight hours ago:
>> "You cannot (legitimately) charge the pharmacist for any part
>> PostgresQL."
>>
>>
>> Actually that's Rob Sargent you're quoting. Adrian took issue with
>> that statement, as do I.  While Google isn't finding me anything that
>> says "Yes, you can sell Postgresql," here are a few points:
>>
>> * Point to anything in the license wording that says you can't
>> charge money to distribute Postgresql.  You can't.
>>
>> * Even software licensed under the GPL, which is a considerably
>> more restrictive license, can be sold.  The free software folks
>> consider the right to sell as one of the freedoms associated with
>> free software.  [1]
>>
>> * The Postgresql license page says it is "a liberal Open Source
>> license, similar to the BSD or MIT licenses." [2] The MIT license
>> itself explicitly states that it grants rights to "sell copies of
>> the software."
>>
>
> How do you sell what you don't own?
>
>
> You can do so because the owners have granted you the right to do so. 
> They were just good enough to not charge you money for it.

Maybe I'm too literal.  I understand:

1. selling physical media that software comes on,
2. selling access to a server where the software resides, and
3. selling a license to use software.

Selling a license to Postgres is worse than selling bottled water, because
at least the bottled water adds a few chemicals for taste, and they put it
in conveniently sized and shaped bottles.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.