Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
I have to admit you hit on exactly why I worded the original as I did. It emphasizes the commonality of the two licenses, and specifically points out the the part of the GPL that we don't like, without slamming it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Earl wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ... > > > > > > > > The whole thing is too wordy. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no? > > > > It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people > > vote. > > While it is certainly true that PostgreSQL developers are > "uncomfortable" with the GPL this version doesn't say *why* you are > uncomfortable. People that follow the BSD-GPL flamewars know what > your problems with the GPL are, but other folks that are just > peripherally aware of the debate (like those who are asking about > GPLing PostgreSQL) could very well misinterpret this. After all, if > they want you to GPL PostgreSQL then clearly they think the > "restrictions" placed by the GPL are not a big deal. To them this > statement will probably read like: > > We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for > hippies and communists :). > > I like the other version: > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. > While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed > source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license > and see no need to change it. > > Instead of emphasizing the problems with the GPL this version > emphasizes the benefits of the BSD license (it's the archetypal > open-source license, and it has no anti-proprietary restrictions). > This statement also specifically points out which "restrictions" to > the GPL make you uncomfortable. > > I would go on to say that it "extends the hand of fellowship" by > pointing out that the GPL has similar goals, but I think that would be > a little over the top. No need to wax poetic. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have to admit you hit on exactly why I worded the original as I did. > It emphasizes the commonality of the two licenses, and specifically > points out the the part of the GPL that we don't like, without slamming > it. That wording invites responses from people who want to give you reasons to change it. Do you want to put the issue to bed or invite more debate? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason Earl wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ... > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing is too wordy. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > This one is perfect ... Bruce? I really leaves no openings, no? > > > > > > It is hard to argue with this wording either. Let's see how people > > > vote. > > > > While it is certainly true that PostgreSQL developers are > > "uncomfortable" with the GPL this version doesn't say *why* you are > > uncomfortable. People that follow the BSD-GPL flamewars know what > > your problems with the GPL are, but other folks that are just > > peripherally aware of the debate (like those who are asking about > > GPLing PostgreSQL) could very well misinterpret this. After all, if > > they want you to GPL PostgreSQL then clearly they think the > > "restrictions" placed by the GPL are not a big deal. To them this > > statement will probably read like: > > > > We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for > > hippies and communists :). > > > > I like the other version: > > > > We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. > > While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed > > source" (proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license > > and see no need to change it. > > > > Instead of emphasizing the problems with the GPL this version > > emphasizes the benefits of the BSD license (it's the archetypal > > open-source license, and it has no anti-proprietary restrictions). > > This statement also specifically points out which "restrictions" to > > the GPL make you uncomfortable. > > > > I would go on to say that it "extends the hand of fellowship" by > > pointing out that the GPL has similar goals, but I think that would be > > a little over the top. No need to wax poetic. > Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.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 ==========================================================================