Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:

> ...
> > 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.
>
> Hmm. But it isn't a simple explanation, it invites controversy and
> argument, and it isn't necessary. I appreciate your efforts to find some
> other phrasing while still addressing "why don't we switch?", but imho
> that line of explanation just shouldn't be there, period.
>
> Let's get back to the FAQ issue. There are two questions which might be
> asked and which might be included in a FAQ:
>
> 1) Q: Why does PostgreSQL have a BSD license?
> A: PostgreSQL was developed at Berkeley and open-sourced under the
> BSD license. That license has served us well over many years.
>
> 2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
> A: See (1)

I like this one.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.