PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

alavoor wrote:

Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.

The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
but by law it is required to include it forever with
pgsql.

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.

Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your
views.

Not in this life time, but thanks for adding your 2 bits ...

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, alavoor wrote:

mlw wrote:

alavoor wrote:

Is is possible to add GNU/GPL licence to the next
release of the pgsql in addition to the UCB licence.

The UCB licence applies to old code several years ago,
but by law it is required to include it forever with
pgsql.

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.

Don't go there man. It is a long discussion and many people do not share your
views.

At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code. However all future
submitters would have to agree to GPL for their new code.

However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
do people think of this summary:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

You are a talented man with a knack for simplifying the imponderables. ;-)

mlw wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

^^^^^^^^^^^

It is actually spelled "foreseeable".

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in
the past we have hidden behind the story that we can't change our
license, which I don' think is true. We could add GPL on top of the BSD
license and therefore someone wanting to make a proprietary version of
PostgreSQL would have to start with today's code.

I doubt this is true at all. We could possibly specify GPL for *new*
code (eg, whole new source files) that we add to the tree, but we can't
unilaterally relicense the existing code. And can you usefully specify
a GPL license for individual patches added to a basically-BSD source file?
Isn't going to work.

In any case, the discussion has been had many times before and the
answer is not going to change. I like your idea of putting something in
the FAQ to try to stave off future queries. The wording you have is
okay as far as it goes, but I'd like to see it made perfectly crystal
clear that we *have* considered GPL and we are *not* interested in
hearing any more "why don't you switch to GPL" proposals. Deleting the
"currently" would be a start.

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

regards, tom lane

[2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:

| At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in

| However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
| would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
| do people think of this summary:

| The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
| (proprietary) restrictions.

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war.

Good point.

I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

regards, tom lane

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

Man, this text is getting longer. :-(

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Now, I don't want to do that, but I do think it is doable.

-- 
  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

...

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

I agree that this is possible. I'd prefer not making a statement in the
FAQ regarding license justifications/alternatives at this time, because
it could be a long discussion with little gain.

Please note the source of this most recent unsolicited suggestion with
unsubstantiated reasoning and we will conclude that we have already
spent too much time on the subject for this go 'round. imho of course ;)

- Thomas

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

regards, tom lane

[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:

| Perhaps something like this:
|
| The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
| since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
| Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
| GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
| concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
| contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
| many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
| would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
| continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
| restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
| BSD license for the foreseeable future.

+1

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:04:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

Truth is useful, even if unpleasant.

Dave, happy with BSD.

--
David Terrell | "the only part about medicinal marijuana that
Prime Minister, Nebcorp | bothers me is that, when I started chemo, all of
dbt@meat.net | my children and grandchildren told me they could
http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | get some for me if I needed it." -mrw's grandfather

Brent Verner wrote:

[2002-01-21 01:30] Tom Lane said:

| Perhaps something like this:
|
| The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
| since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
| Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
| GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
| concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
| contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
| many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
| would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
| continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
| restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
| BSD license for the foreseeable future.

+1

Yep, lets go with this version.

+ Justin

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such

This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:

The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
wish to impose upon our users and developers.

Why just "commercial entities"?

Matthew.

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
we don't want GPL.

-- 
  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

Matthew Kirkwood wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such

This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:

The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
wish to impose upon our users and developers.

Why just "commercial entities"?

Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more
detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
possibility for problems.

One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current
license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
I don't want to do it, but there it is.

An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of
"current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That
last sentence could also be removed completely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

-- 
  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 Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
you wish" ...

I'd get rid of the 'foreseeable future' part myself ...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

Man, this text is getting longer. :-(

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

If someone wanted to fork and call it a new name, ya, its doable ...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Anyway, let's look at it this way. If we allow for proprietary versions
of PostgreSQL, it is hard to imagine why we couldn't make a GPL version
_without_ the agreement of past contributors. We have to keep the BSD
part about giving credit and no sueing, but we can clearly _add_ the GPL
cruft if we wanted to and all current/future developers agree. It is
basically a GPL fork of PostgreSQL, rather than a proprietary fork.

Well, (a) not all current developers will agree, (b) you need to get
past developers in there too, and (c) I'm not as sure as you are that
we can simply plaster GPL on top of BSD-licensed code. The GPL does
not like merging GPL code with not-GPL code, free or otherwise. See

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parties under the terms of this License.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the "viral" aspect of GPL that so many people have complained of.

But wait a sec; the last thing we need here is yet another license
discussion. Given that the objective of this FAQ addition is to prevent
future license flamewars, I think the last thing we want it to do is
give any suggestion that GPL-izing the code might actually be feasible.
Why are you so eager to suggest that that might be possible?

I am not trying to suggest GPL. I merely think we should be honest that
we don't want GPL.

Ya, but with your wording, you are suggesting that that desire may change
in the future ...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Matthew Kirkwood wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such

This could easily be interpreted as flamebait. It doesn't
limit contribution at all. What's wrong with:

The GPL contains restrictions which we do not
wish to impose upon our users and developers.

Why just "commercial entities"?

Yes, this is the problem with longer wording --- the more words, the
more possibility for disagreement/discussion and offense. The more
detailed you get, "We can't do it", "We don't like X about it", the more
possibility for problems.

One clarification. We could not put the GPL on top of our current
license, but we could add enough GPL aspects to make it effectively GPL.
Of course, it would be a mess, we couldn't get most to agree to it, and
I don't want to do it, but there it is.

An updated version of my short text is below. I removed the mention of
"current" and "similar". I also strengthened the last sentence. That
last sentence could also be removed completely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

This one is nice and short and to the point ... I like :)

Bruce Momjian wrote:
<snip>

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

Ok, how about :

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti "closed source"
(proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

That has got to be about as plain and non-offensive as possible.

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source,

^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

Spot the recipe for disaster :-)

"While the GPL expresses many of our goals,"

it has certain anti-closed source (proprietary) restrictions. Many
PostgreSQL developers question the need for such restrictions. We
like our BSD license and see no need to change it.

I don't really like "Many PostgreSQL developers question
the need for such restrictions." It may be that they do,
but that's not the point; the point is that you don't
want them, not that they are inherently inappropriate
(whether you believe that or not).

Matthew.

Justin Clift wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:
<snip>

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

Ok, how about :

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
(proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added.

-- 
  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

Spoken like a true *BSD person. I'm on the board of the Open Source Initiative
(current maintainer of the Open Source Definition). None of us would ever
characterize the GPL as "anti-open source".

To paraphrase Woody Allen (who quipped "the lamb may lie down with the lion,
but the lamb won't get very much sleep"), if you value the freedom to hack on
source code, the GPL enables the lamb (an individual programmer) to lie down
with the lion (large corporate interests who could take the code down a
proprietary path) without losing sleep. Also, I don't see this as anti-closed
source--just pro-programmer.

M

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Justin Clift wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:
<snip>

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL also promotes open-source, it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

Ok, how about :

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
(proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than
flame-bait. BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um... how's this
:

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.

***

I find it amazing I'm even concerned about this when I should be
sleeping. :)

'nite

+ Justin

OK, here is Justin's wording, with "goals" and "questionable" added.

--
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

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

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.

It's an FAQ entry, not an exercise for a law student.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Brent Verner wrote:

[2002-01-20 23:43] Bruce Momjian said:

| At the great risk of causing chaos, let me chime in on this. First, in

| However, we clearly don't have unanimous agreement on using GPL so I
| would like to address this in an FAQ item to get it more concrete. What
| do people think of this summary:

| The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
| (proprietary) restrictions.

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war. I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

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

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?

Ok, how about :

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it has questionable anti-"closed source"
(proprietary) restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to
change it.

I don't think calling the GPL "questionable" is anything other than
flame-bait. BUT, I do like the new "goals" wording... um... how's this
:

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.

I know this is a pain but I think it is worth getting this down so we
have something concrete to point to when people ask. Actually, it is
going much quicker and smoother than I thought.

How about this? I have removed "questionable": (This is getting shorter
each time.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions. We like our BSD license and see no need to change it.

-- 
  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

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.

-- 
  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

I'd like to second Michael Tiemann's opinion: I respect the PG developers'
right to use the BSD license, and I understand the BSD point of view. I just
happen to disagree with it.

I also support the idea of putting together an FAQ that is as simple and
straight-forward as possible, so that no time is wasted on license flaming.
If the final note could simply say that you've chosen the BSD license
without bashing the GPL, we, GPL fans, would greatly appreciate it.

Can't we all just get along?

-Ben

On 1/21/02 9:03 AM, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

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.

As one of those who contributed my $.02 to PostgreSQL, I think short is
sweet.

'tis got my vote.

--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/

How about something like this, avoiding any such BSD/GPL comparison:

The PostgreSQL project was originated using the BSD license. Over the
years many people have contributed code and effort understanding that
their work would be licensed using the BSD license. The leaders of the
PostgreSQL project, as an entity, do not believe that it would be right
to change the implied agreement under which the entirety of the project
was developed.

mlw wrote:

How about something like this, avoiding any such BSD/GPL comparison:

The PostgreSQL project was originated using the BSD license. Over the
years many people have contributed code and effort understanding that
their work would be licensed using the BSD license. The leaders of the
PostgreSQL project, as an entity, do not believe that it would be right
to change the implied agreement under which the entirety of the project
was developed.

You know, that is true, but it sort of suggests that we would change if
we felt we could, but we don't actually want to.

-- 
  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

Ben Adida wrote:

I also support the idea of putting together an FAQ that is as simple and
straight-forward as possible, so that no time is wasted on license flaming.
If the final note could simply say that you've chosen the BSD license
without bashing the GPL, we, GPL fans, would greatly appreciate it.

Why not just say that PG was originally developed at Berkeley, and
released by them under the BSD licence? You could simply point out that
PG has flourished as a project releasing code under that license, it
ain't broke, and there ain't anything to fix.

In other words, stay neutral on the "which is best" issue and point out
the simple historical truth.

Can't we all just get along?

Ask the Palestinians and Israelis. Or the Serbs and Bosnians. Or Microsoft

and the rest of the software industry.

The whole BSD/GPL issue's pretty trite, when you think about it.

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

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.

My 2 cents,
Jason Earl

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We currently have a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
The GPL is similar to BSD, except that it has certain anti-closed source
(proprietary) restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers question the
need for such restrictions and we therefore will continue with the BSD
license for the for-seeable future.

GPL is kinda 'anti-open source' too, IMHO ... it puts restrictions on what
you can do with the source code, so it isn't *really* "free to do with as
you wish" ...

Yupp, it's kinda "I am the only truth and you shall not have
any other licenses ...", IMHO a little selfish.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Bruce Momjian wrote:

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.

I like it. It reduces it to the bottom line "we've been
there, discussed that, forget it".

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Tom Lane writes:

[...]

many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
BSD license for the foreseeable future.

If that is actually true, then "many PostgreSQL developers" are completely
missing the point. (Or possibly the commercial entities are missing the
point.)

If commercial entity A writes code C, then A owns the copyright on C and A
can relicense C in any way they want. In particular A can contribute C to
a "community" GPL code base and can sell C in a closed-source product at
the same time.

For commercial entities, the main difference between a BSD license and the
GPL is that they can add their own code and sell the result closed-source
*without* having to effectively contribute it to the community sources.
But in that case they're not actually "contributing", as you write, and
the open project could care less.

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give
away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

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

Tom Lane wrote:

Brent Verner <brent@rcfile.org> writes:

Calling the two licenses "similar" is only an invitation to engage
in license war.

Good point.

I'd suggest something like the following (as long
as it doesn't contain any factual errors).

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD
license since its inception. Occasionally, users request that
the project be relicensed under the GPL. Many PostgreSQL
developers feel the GPL contains certain restrictions that
might limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute
or continue contributing to the codebase, and question the
need for such restrictions. In light of these concerns, we
will continue with the BSD license for the foreseeable future.

This is really good as far as it goes. I'd also like to see the
point made that we cannot simply relicense the code, even if we wished
to, because the current developers are not the sole authors/owners.
Perhaps something like this:

The PostgreSQL project has released its code under the BSD license
since its inception; as did the Berkeley Postgres project before us.
Occasionally, users suggest that the project be relicensed under the
GPL. This is not very practical because it would require the
concurrence not only of the current developers, but many past
contributors both at Berkeley and all over the net. Furthermore,
many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).

It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

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?

I guess my goal is to have a paragraph that tries to show the value of
the BSD license. Saying we just don't like the GPL isn't telling people
what we dislike about it. It opens up questions of why we don't like it,
and it is more confrontational that I would like to be towards the GPL.
Many GPL folks are GPL because they don't understand the nature of the
GPL restrictions in practice and why the BSD license may be better for
them. The wording I used attempts to "reach out that hand" as someone
said. to the other side, in a nice way.

What we could try is the more gentile wording and if that causes too
much chatter, we can clamp down on the wording and give a more
confrontational tone.

-- 
  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

OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the
"reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no
license changes are desired.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such
restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its
existing license.

-- 
  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:

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

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?

I guess my goal is to have a paragraph that tries to show the value of
the BSD license. Saying we just don't like the GPL isn't telling people
what we dislike about it. It opens up questions of why we don't like it,

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

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

I appreciate everyone chiming on on this discussion. I know it isn't
fun, but once we get agreeable wording, it is something we can point to
that will give clarity to others asking similar questions.

-- 
  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:

OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the
"reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no
license changes are desired.

Confrontational. Too wordy. Invites debate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such
restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its
existing license.

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

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't.

Quite true. I like the last few variants Bruce has proposed, along the
lines of "We like the BSD license and see no reason to change."

regards, tom lane

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

-- 
  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

I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
...

Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
thereafter, and it just goes around ...

if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
...

Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
thereafter, and it just goes around ...

if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...

But Vince's text is below. It starts with "Many". I merely grafted his
text after my opening text:

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.

-- 
  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:

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

Define we. Are you sure that that's *everyone's* dislike? Are you
sure there aren't other reasons - Tom mentioned it's viral nature
for one thing, which happens to be one of my dislikes but it's not
the only one. Say that restriction was changed in the GPL, would
you then want to change PostgreSQL to GPL? You might, but I doubt
everyone would (and I'm sure Marc wouldn't).

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to
just say it is counter to policy?

I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment
both camps have to their license.

I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites
debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for
all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will
remain as it always has.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
...

Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
thereafter, and it just goes around ...

if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...

But Vince's text is below. It starts with "Many". I merely grafted his
text after my opening text:

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.

Then I disagree with Vince's for same reason :) Unless ... add in
something that implies that without unanimous consent of all developers (a
near impossible task), it can't be cahnged?

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

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?

I like it too. Short & sweet.

Can we go back to work now? ;-)

regards, tom lane

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
...

Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
thereafter, and it just goes around ...

if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...

I pondered "many". You can remove it if you wish, but you then paint
all contributers with the same brush and I don't think that's true.
Some being uncomfortable and some not is (imnsho) not confrontational
at all, it merely states fact. If anything should be changed, it's the
word "uncomfortable" is the whimpy one, but it's less confrontational
than dislike, hate, etc.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

--
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

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

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I think, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vince is pointing out
the whole 'Many of the Developers' thing ... if we are (or at least appear
to be) unanimous in this, then there is nothing to discuss ... if "Many of
the developers' are uncomfortable, then obviously there are ones out there
that aren't, and that is where the whole "confrontation" I think arises
...

Why does this discussion get started over and over again? Because one
person brings it up, and those in favor of GPL generally pop up
thereafter, and it just goes around ...

if we get rid of 'the Many' part, then you are saying "thi sis the way it
is, this is the way it stays, no discussion" ...

But Vince's text is below. It starts with "Many". I merely grafted his
text after my opening text:

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.

Then I disagree with Vince's for same reason :) Unless ... add in
something that implies that without unanimous consent of all developers (a
near impossible task), it can't be cahnged?

See my previous comment on "many" but if you still disagree, how about
this:

Without the unanimous consent of all of the developers and contributors,
the PostgreSQL license cannot be changed, modified or added to.

Gives no reasons, invites debate from both factions, won't put it to
bed. Lemme think on this one a bit, I may still come up with something
everyone can stomach without being too wordy or ambiguous.

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

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

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?

I like it too. Short & sweet.

Okay, I'm not that hard up on the Many issue, and it does say what we want
...

mlw wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to
just say it is counter to policy?

I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment
both camps have to their license.

I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites
debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for
all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will
remain as it always has.

This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back
to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an
old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL,
which I don't think is true, or at least not certain.

We need something that:

1) quells debate
2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have
3) encourages BSD license usage

Basically, we need some wording that no only quells debate, but also
paints BSD as a favorable license that people should like and use. We
have people contributing modules in /contrib, and some of them are
GPL'ing them because we don't have a statement about our license and why
we are proud of it. If we don't have such a statement, it is hard to
encourage people to contribute new modules under BSD rather than GPL.

No wording is going to be perfect, but I do believe we need to have a
positive statement of BSD in that paragraph and how it can be seen as
prefereable to GPL.

-- 
  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:

mlw wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

It's really noone's business why any of us dislike it. My reasons may
or may not be different than yours which may/may not be different from
Marc's, and so on. Why try to summarize everyone's feelings when it's
unnecessary. My statement never said that we just don't like it, it
was clear that many of the developers were uncomfortable with its
restrictions. Break it down. What are "many of the developers"
uncomfortable with? The GPL's restrictions. What's not clear about
that? It didn't say "many of the developers just don't like it", that
would border on confrontational. You're not going to change the minds
of those that favor GPL just as you're not going to change the minds
of those that prefer BSD.

Isn't it the restrictions on proprietary use that we dislike? Seems we
should say that in there.

Is it necessary to say you don't like the GPL? Isn't it sufficient to
just say it is counter to policy?

I think the problem with writing this thing is the emotional attachment
both camps have to their license.

I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites
debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for
all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will
remain as it always has.

This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back
to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an
old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL,
which I don't think is true, or at least not certain.

We need something that:

1) quells debate
2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have
3) encourages BSD license usage

Basically, we need some wording that no only quells debate, but also
paints BSD as a favorable license that people should like and use. We
have people contributing modules in /contrib, and some of them are
GPL'ing them because we don't have a statement about our license and why
we are proud of it. If we don't have such a statement, it is hard to
encourage people to contribute new modules under BSD rather than GPL.

No wording is going to be perfect, but I do believe we need to have a
positive statement of BSD in that paragraph and how it can be seen as
prefereable to GPL.

Between this and Marc's comment, I think I can come up with the right
wording. Give me a bit.

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

3) encourages BSD license usage

And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
to personal opinion.

I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather than
make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long ago. We
_do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

mlw wrote:

I think any attempt to say you dislike GPL for any reason invites
debate. Forget it, just say for historical reasons and with respect for
all the people that made PostgreSQL what it is today, the license will
remain as it always has.

This gets to the crux of why I chose the wording I did. If we fall back
to "Oh, it has always been that way", we are basically saying BSD is an
old license and if we could do it over again today, we would chose GPL,
which I don't think is true, or at least not certain.

We need something that:

1) quells debate

Yes, this is important.

2) shows are are proud of the BSD license we have

Ok, that's good, I personally see strengths in both licenses.

3) encourages BSD license usage

And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
to personal opinion.

Bruce Momjian wrote:

3) encourages BSD license usage

And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not think
you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not keep coming
up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite vigorous debate
with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and respect for the GPL
camp, I think the politics and religion of license should be relegated
to personal opinion.

I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather than
make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long ago. We
_do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

I just hopped over to PHP, and here is thier explanation:

Q. Why is PHP 4 not dual-licensed under the GNU General Public License
(GPL) like PHP 3 was?

A. GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with
the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a
much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as
possible.

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

3) encourages BSD license usage

And here it is! As hidden as this is, it is the problem. I do not
think you have unanimous agreement, else these arguments would not
keep coming up. As long as you are "promoting" BSD you will invite
vigorous debate with the GPL camp. For the sake of the peace and
respect for the GPL camp, I think the politics and religion of
license should be relegated to personal opinion.

I merely meant that we should show BSD as a viable license, rather
than make excuses for it by saying it was chosen by someone long
ago. We _do_ need to promote it within our own source tree.

Then why not simply try something like this:

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license.
While the GPL has similar goals, it also has anti-"closed
source" (proprietary) restrictions. Programmers that would
like to have their source code included in the official
PostgreSQL distribution will need to license their code using
a BSD style license.

This clearly sets the policy for inclusion of source code in the
official distribution without whacking the GPL hackers for their
preference in license. Even the staunchest pro-GPL hacker would agree
that the GPL has "anti-'closed source' (proprietary) restrictions."

Jason

I'm not replying to anyone in particular, and I'm certainly no lawyer nor
an expert on either license, but why do you have to give any reasons at
all? Why can't you just say "for a variety of reasons postgresql is using
the BSD licence and it is going to stay that way".

I don't see a need to tell people why you aren't going to switch, nor to
even talk about the GPL at all... anything you say will upset someone and
they'll bring it up again...

I do like the bit about contributed code needing to be under the BSD
license as that's something that isn't answered.

just my 2 cents...

-philip

On 21 Jan 2002, Jason Earl wrote:

I've like the variations of the theme for this, especially the simplisty
of the one below. The only thing that may be adventagous to change is
to say:
"PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions"
rather than using the word "Many". However, as listed sounds fine to me.

Maybe this is confrontational, but does it make sense to give a list of
a few things wrong with the GPL? I'm unsure if that would be benfitial
or just confrontational, since it would sound like an attack against the
GPL license directly.

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 10:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:

OK, here is merged wording of my version and Vince's. It keeps the
"reach out the hand" phrase, but ends with a clear statement that no
license changes are desired.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We carry a BSD license, the archetypal open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, it also has "closed source" (proprietary)
restrictions. Many PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such
restrictions. The PostgreSQL project has no intention of modifying its
existing license.

-- 
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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

On 21 Jan 2002, Ned Wolpert wrote:

I've like the variations of the theme for this, especially the simplisty
of the one below. The only thing that may be adventagous to change is
to say:
"PostgreSQL developers are uncomfortable with such restrictions"
rather than using the word "Many". However, as listed sounds fine to me.

Because lacking the word "Many" implies that ALL of the developers
are uncomfortable with the restriction which is incorrect.

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

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give
away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.

I agree with Peter here. There is no need to justify the license schema
with PostgreSQL. However, I think people need to be clear (via FAQ,
Readme, anything with a URL that we can point to people) so that when
this question comes up, we simply direct them there and say, basically,
"its a non-discusionable"

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

Sorry for adding to this already long (and previously discussed) thread but
I don't see much need in justifying the BSD license, just say "Hey, it's
what we've had, we like it and we don't want to change it Thanks very much
for your opinion but it's been discussed and the decision to stay with the
BSD license has been made"

There we go! PostgreSQL developers (and users) don't need to answer to
anyone in my opinion and I think the statement should reflect that in the
nicest way possible.. Just a "thanks but no thanks" in the FAQ and add a
note asking people to please not bring it up again :-)

*deposits $0.02*

-Mitch

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give
away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.

It's my opinion that the code is the developer's to do with as they please,
and if they like the BSD license then no one really has a right to argue! If
anything it allows users to do *more* than other licenses, the way I see
it..

Bottom line is it's been decided and the mother's #1 reason of "because I
said so" is good enough for me (and should be for everyone that's not a
developer IMHO)! :-)

-Mitch

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:12, Jason Earl wrote:

We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for
hippies and communists :).

OT: I thought GPL was for communists and BSD was for hippies? ;-)

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

Ned Wolpert wrote:

Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:12, Jason Earl wrote:

We have always used the BSD license and believe the GPL is for
hippies and communists :).

OT: I thought GPL was for communists and BSD was for hippies? ;-)

Way off topic: I think it is GPL/communism vs. BSD/socialism.

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian writes:

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.

Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect,
because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is
not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways.

I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are
about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify
it as "FAQ" anyway.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

OK, I have worked with Vince, our webmaster, to merge our two versions
into one paragraph that everyone, hopefully, will like. It is below.
It would be added to the bottom of FAQ item 1.2:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals,

BSD and GPL licences don't have similar goals. You'll get a lot of mail saying
this, if you publish such a phrase.

Just say BSD is the licence used by PostgreSQL. Let people make their own idea
of why and for what things are the way they are. This way, it'll be *way* much
ecological.

I, for instance, learned to accept the fact that PG is BSD-licensed, which also
helped me understand the nature of BSD. But it took time. It is not suitable for
a FAQ.

I remember a very enlightening sentence months ago in this list, which said the
intention behind the licencing scheme was "do whatever you want with this
software, but do it under your own responsibility, don't blame the authors"

Regards,
Haroldo.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:12:58PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian writes:

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.

Besides the poor grammar in the second sentence, it's also incorrect,
because the whole point of the BSD license to some people is that it is
not "alone" under the BSD license but can be relicensed in other ways.

I think we should just scrap it and get on with our lives. There are
about 2 questions a year about the license issues, which does not qualify
it as "FAQ" anyway.

The one thing that _does_ come up is not 'change your license to GPL' but
"here's my GPLed code: can it get into the main tree?" I liked the version
that mentioned 'contributors must BSD license to get it into the main tree'
since that's the principle Q for people we care about: potential coders.
Anyone else who wants to argue licenses can be safely ignored.

Ross

Keith G. Murphy wrote:

In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).

Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.

Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.

Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the
fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial
investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to
reflect reality.

It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...

Nor does it prevent one from distributing the same software under a
different license, as TrollTech does. GPL if you build GPL'd software
for Linux, a proprietary $$$ license in other cases - a situation
accepted by none other than RMS (who is not my favorite person, either,
though I personally like the GPL).

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

Don Baccus wrote:

Keith G. Murphy wrote:

In the interests of exactitude, shouldn't that really be something like
"adversely affects the willingness"? Or "discourages commercial
entities from contributing..."? (Though the latter is actually a bit
too strong for my liking).

Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.

Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.

Note that I'm not arguing the merits of either license here, only the
fact that the common argument that the GPL discourages commercial
investment while the BSD license encourages it does not appear to
reflect reality.

I think that has more to do with the fact that there is more visibility
with Linux. While the BSD license was still tied up in confusion over
who owned what (AT&T vs Berkeley) people started to contribute to GNU.
Linux seemed to be the first project with both. I don't think the
commercial word cared if it was a FREE-BSD OS or FREE-GNU OS license,
just that it was free and Linux seems to be (as far as features go),
BSD + more.

The GNU license discourages vertical application vendors from
contributing as they have to give away the source and expertise.

I have no problem with free source code. I do have a problem
of having to implement some source code that belongs to a customer
and they consider their database part of their competitive advantage.
By having to give away the source, they tell their competitors
how to export from their database. This does discourage commercial
work where the database and how you access it is confidential.

One advantage of PostgreSQL is that you can use it for your
customers - and THEY own the paid for source code.

The BSD license does not keep them from contributing, but it allows
them not have to when they can't give it away. GPL is great for
some things, but not for databases.

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 16:34, Don Baccus wrote:

Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.

Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.

I'm not sure that this is because of license issues with GPL versus BSD.
Oracle's applications on Linux are released with a propritary license...
that runs on a (for the most part) GPL'd OS. IBM does release some code
under GPL, and tends not to under BSD, but also has applications that
run on Linux that are propritary license.

Yes, both Oracle and IBM (and Sun for that fact) support Linux more than
xxxBSD as operating systems, and they are more likely to release code
under GPL (Sun with OpenOffice, etc) but their support of Linux is more
market driven, not license driven. (

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere
in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested,
non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like:

Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license
from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution
is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license.

Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm
not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I
am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which
have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen
tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough
for me ;)

- Thomas

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

If you feel you must bother to mention this whole sordid topic somewhere
in the documentation, I much prefer the already-suggested,
non-judgemental wording (by Mitch Vincent and others) of something like:

Postgres has been developed and released under the BSD license
from its inception. Code contributed to the main distribution
is assumed to be, and must be, released under this same license.

Frankly, I'm not sure why I should be uncomfortable with GPL, and I'm
not sure that a FAQ should presume to explain why I am, especially if I
am not. But I *am* comfortable with the ground rules of PostgreSQL which
have been there since the beginning and with which we have seen
tremendous growth and maturity of the project and product. Good enough
for me ;)

Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.

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

Doug Royer wrote:

The GNU license discourages vertical application vendors from
contributing as they have to give away the source and expertise.

Only if they actually change the source and distribute those changes.

You can take Oracle's approach, i.e. work with the Linux kernel/library
folks in order to get features you want (raw I/O), then happily run your
application on top of it.

They could've done the work themselves, released that to the Linux world
under the GNU license, and still happily distribute Oracle and the
tools that come with Oracle (slowly being rolled into Linux space) in
closed an proprietary form.

I have no problem with free source code. I do have a problem
of having to implement some source code that belongs to a customer
and they consider their database part of their competitive advantage.
By having to give away the source, they tell their competitors
how to export from their database. This does discourage commercial
work where the database and how you access it is confidential.

One advantage of PostgreSQL is that you can use it for your
customers - and THEY own the paid for source code.

If your customers aren't releasing what they paid for, they don't have
to turn it back.

You only have to turn the source back if you *release* your changes.

OpenACS is GPL'd and about a half-dozen (growing towards a dozen,
actually) small companies do custom client db-backed websites using
Oracle and PG. The custom code we create for an individual customer's
site remains with that customer, if they prefer. There's no GPL problem
at all.

(We encourage release back to the community, of course, as a half-dozen
*small* consulting shops cooperating on making our toolkit robust and
featureful we benefit when we can share work our clients pay for).

The GPL protects us against a party wrapping everything up, extending
it, and offering an improved proprietary version and turning around and
trying to put our small firms out of business. OK, dot-com mania is
over and the odds of someone doing that are minimal. My point though is
that far from being "communist" the GPL gives us a bit more control over
the code, which helps satisfy our *capitalist* endeavors.

The BSD license does not keep them from contributing, but it allows
them not have to when they can't give it away. GPL is great for
some things, but not for databases.

There's no reason why the client library, for instance, couldn't be
LGPL'd, removing this problem.

I'm not arguing that PG should switch - the BSD's a *fine* license. I

don't want anyone to misunderstand my feelings on this. Clearly the BSD
doesn't encumber the code and for those folks who are comfortable with
this, the more power to them.

But I keep reading interpretations of the GPL and its effects here that
are far removed from the real world.

Making a statement knocking the GPL in ways that show a misunderstanding
of how the license works in practice won't do much to keep this subject
from coming up periodically.

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

Ned Wolpert wrote:

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 16:34, Don Baccus wrote:

Not to mention the fact that anyone who chooses to take a look around
the universe will find at least as many commercial entities contributing
to well-known GPL'd software as to well-known BSD'd software.

Oracle supports Linux, not xxxBSD. IBM supports Linux, not xxxBSD.

I'm not sure that this is because of license issues with GPL versus BSD.

I wasn't implying this. I simply pointed out that the supposed
disincentive to commercial participation that the GPL brings to the
table is fantasy.

Oracle's applications on Linux are released with a propritary license...
that runs on a (for the most part) GPL'd OS.

Right. No viral effect, nope, the LGPL was developed precisely to make
this point clear though it can be argued it wasn't necessary. Nothing
wrong with being precise and up-front with what is thought to be OK or
not, though.

Yes, both Oracle and IBM (and Sun for that fact) support Linux more than
xxxBSD as operating systems, and they are more likely to release code
under GPL (Sun with OpenOffice, etc) but their support of Linux is more
market driven, not license driven. (

Which wasn't my point, see above. There's no license disincentive. I
didn't argue that there's a license *incentive* working in the GPL's favor.

Though now that you mention it, there might be - IBM may be more willing
to release code under the GPL because they know that a competitor will
have to release improvements under the GPL, rather than suck in IBM's
stuff as the basis for a proprietary product.

When you're tackling Microsoft that's something to consider, given that
they've incorporated BSD-licensed code into windows in the past.

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

Don Baccus wrote:

OpenACS is GPL'd ...

I should point out that we inherited GPL'd code, thus "which license"
isn't an issue. If someone asks me why we don't use the BSD license I
have a very simple answer for them.

Which should be the case with PG. The original authors released it
under the Berkely license and "which license" shouldn't be an issue. I
still don't understand why more needs to be said. If people are too
clueless to understand this, let them remain clueless and ignore them.

IMHO, that is.

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

...

Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.

Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at
least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current
arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum?

I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on
-hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently...

- Thomas

On Monday 21 January 2002 09:41 pm, Don Baccus wrote:

Which should be the case with PG. The original authors released it
under the Berkely license and "which license" shouldn't be an issue. I
still don't understand why more needs to be said. If people are too
clueless to understand this, let them remain clueless and ignore them.

And we must consider the source of this last 'cannonade'. After all, the
laws of physics apply to software! (;-)).

Personally, I don't think our FAQ list should address this issue at all.
PostgreSQL is BSD licensed. And that's just that.

However, if the majority thinks it best to point out the reasons, the
smaller, simpler, and lowest flashpoint solution should be taken. The GPL
has its adherents, advantages, and disadvantages. The BSD license likewise.
Mutual respect amongst the parties should be followed, IMHO.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Hi all,

It may be useful to include a link below the final statement to this
(and/or other) threads on BSD/GPL license discussion. As much as a license
FAQ item is about informing users about the license and why it
specifically is used, it needs also to deter people from the 'WHY ISN'T
POSTGRES xyz LICENSE?' mailing list post.

Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already
been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would
help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't
Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?'

Thanks,

Gavin

Gavin Sherry wrote:

Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already
been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would
help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't
Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?'

Simple answer: "because Postgres and the BSD license predates the GPL."

I think that's correct and it's even relevant, no?

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

Thomas Lockhart wrote:

...

Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.

Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at
least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current
arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum?

Current wording proposal which is a mix from several people:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on
-hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently...

Not sure who added general but I did not remove it.

-- 
  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

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

*I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present
company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been
satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves
Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine.

I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
great licenses in the history of open software. So why are we having to
justify it?

- Thomas

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Don Baccus wrote:

Gavin Sherry wrote:

Something as simple as 'Changing postgres to another license has already
been discussed at length over the years. See the following urls' would
help. After all, it seems that the frequently asked question 'Why isn't
Postgres GPL'd?' not 'Why is Postgres released under a BSD License?'

Simple answer: "because Postgres and the BSD license predates the GPL."

I think that's correct and it's even relevant, no?

I wasn't asking the question personally =) but rather discussing the kind
of being being asked by people interested in Postgres's licensing and the
way it would be most adequately answered.

Gavin

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:

I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
great licenses in the history of open software.

Agreed entirely.

So why are we having to justify it?

We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that
might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question.
FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this
issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry.

Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been
discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion;
now go away" ...

regards, tom lane

Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:

Why not just say that PG was originally developed at Berkeley, and
released by them under the BSD licence? You could simply point out that
PG has flourished as a project releasing code under that license, it
ain't broke, and there ain't anything to fix.

Y'know, this has got a lot of merit to it.

See also my reply to Tom Lockhart. We've seen the "why isn't PG under
GPL" question often enough that it clearly merits a FAQ entry. The
purpose of a FAQ entry is to save time for both askers and answerers.
Potential askers should not be left with the illusion that they might
change the already-thoroughly-considered decision by asking Yet One More
Time. Ye weary answerers have other things to do than respond Yet One
More Time. If we make a FAQ entry, the one thing I require of it is
that it be absolutely, pellucidly, crystal clear that there is not scope
for more discussion. "It ain't broke and we aren't gonna fix it" seems
to meet the need admirably.

regards, tom lane

I think it's necessary, just looking at my mailbox :).

Anyone who wants a GPL version of Postgresql can fork off.

Cheerio,
Link.

At 03:24 AM 22-01-2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

...

Tom, the word "uncomfortable" was removed. Maybe you should reread it.

Reread what? There are several threads going on at once afaict (or at
least afa-my-mailer-ct). If we are comfortable with the current
arrangement, then why bother trying to explain it ad infinitum?

Reread what?! The same message you quoted and I responded to!

I'm also not sure why this thread is on -general rather than on
-hackers, but that has been true of lots of threads recently...

'cuze that's how it started and noone changed it.

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

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. While the
GPL has similar goals, PostgreSQL developers find the restrictions
imposed by the GPL to be unacceptable. Since the BSD license has no
such restrictions, we like it and have no intention of changing it.

*I* don't find GPL unacceptable. Some of my favorite software (present
company excepted of course) has it. But I am and have always been
satisfied that the BSD license (predating GPL as Don points out) serves
Postgres and PostgreSQL just fine.

And now you know why I wanted the word "many" in there.

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

Hey guys, I think we have three camps here.

(1) BSD camp.
(2) GPL Camp.
(3) Moderates.

The BSD camp wants to promote the BSD license and the philosophy. There is
nothing wrong with this, but I think it has to be acknowledged.

The GPL camp can't understand how anyone would not use GPL for an open source
project. So many evil companies from whom to protect one's self.

The Moderates are in between.

I am personally uncomfortable with promoting the BSD license. It is a good
license, yes, but I think it is too open, and does lend itself to corporate
abuse.

I am equally uncomfortable in promoting the GPL. I think it is way too radical
and attempts to be too viral.

Can't we just say that PostgreSQL uses the BSD license for historical reasons,
and without any absolute consensus amongst the developers, there is no reason
to change? I think that is a very reasonable middle of the road approach,
without getting into the GPL/BSD bashing.

I think it is abundantly clear that PostgreSQL is bigger than the license
debate, and that many people with different views on it, are willing to accept
the status quo to develop for it.

Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change
their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL.

I

...

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.

- Thomas

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@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
==========================================================================

mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:

Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change
their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL.

Huh? We're not debating it --- no one in this thread is suggesting that
the license be changed. We're trying to formulate a FAQ entry that
will prevent people from bringing the subject up again in the future.

I think the hard part here is to word the entry to make it clear that
the decision is final, without annoying anyone so much that we end up
creating flamewars instead of preventing 'em.

regards, tom lane

...

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)

- Thomas

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

...

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)

It's worth a try if you actually think it'll work, but as many times as
I've seen it come up I seriously doubt #2 will settle it and the
complaints of trying to sidestep the issue will be the new platform for
those wanting it changed.

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

I am starting to agree with Thomas and others --- why mention the GPL at
all. How about this. (Again to appear at the bottom of FAQ item 1.2):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no
restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no
intention of changing it.

-- 
  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

Tom Lane wrote:

mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:

Does any one really see any reason to debate this? BSD people won't change
their minds and the GPL people will continue to push for GPL.

Huh? We're not debating it --- no one in this thread is suggesting that
the license be changed. We're trying to formulate a FAQ entry that
will prevent people from bringing the subject up again in the future.

I think the hard part here is to word the entry to make it clear that
the decision is final, without annoying anyone so much that we end up
creating flamewars instead of preventing 'em.

Could something like "The core team has participated in several
discussions
about changing the license and has found no good reasons to do so".
If anyone else wants to relese it under any other license (GPL, MPL,
AOL, MSFT ;)
then they are free to do so as long as they comply with the original
license.

That could produce 1 or 2 dead PostgreGPL.sf.net projects each year but
should otherways be harmless :)

----------------
Hannu

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes:

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)

Not bad, but I'd add one more sentence:

2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
A: See (1). It would be very difficult to change licenses,
and we see no need to.

regards, tom lane

2) Q: Why does PostgreSQL not have a GPL license?
A: See (1). It would be very difficult to change licenses,
and we see no need to.

Yup, that works for me :)

- Thomas

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 19:32, Don Baccus wrote:

Which wasn't my point, see above. There's no license disincentive. I
didn't argue that there's a license *incentive* working in the GPL's favor.

From what you were saying, it sounded like you were comparing releasing
products on Linux vs. xxxBSD was related to how the OS's were licensed.
Now I understand that you weren't meaning to say that.

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

Bruce Momjian wrote:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no
restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no
intention of changing it.

Much better. I personally think that mentioning the historical
connection (i.e. code developed at Berkeley, released under BSD) would
help quelch the "why not change?" questions. At least I think it makes
a simple answer to such questions. If someone doesn't think that it is
important to respect the license under which the early developers
released their code, that's a clue that they're not clueful enough to
bother talking to, isn't it?

--
Don Baccus
Portland, OR
http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.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 Glomsr�d
Red Hat, Inc.

Hi all,

I have an addition for it :

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

<snip>

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)

3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just
add the GPL to PostgreSQL?
A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people
feel at the time.

Probably flamed.

And probably with enthusiasm. :)

Don't do it.

+ Justin

It's worth a try if you actually think it'll work, but as many times as
I've seen it come up I seriously doubt #2 will settle it and the
complaints of trying to sidestep the issue will be the new platform for
those wanting it changed.

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On Tue, 2002-01-22 at 08:59, Don Baccus wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no
restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no
intention of changing it.

Works for me. Can a vote be cast and we be done with it?

--

Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert@knowledgenet.com>

D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

Hi all,

I have an addition for it :

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

<snip>

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)

3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just
add the GPL to PostgreSQL?
A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people
feel at the time.

Probably flamed.

And probably with enthusiasm. :)

Don't do it.

I'm thinking we should just use Lincoln's verbage and be done
with it.

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

...

And probably with enthusiasm. :)

:)

- Thomas

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

Hi all,

I have an addition for it :

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

<snip>

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)

3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just
add the GPL to PostgreSQL?
A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people
feel at the time.

Probably flamed.

And probably with enthusiasm. :)

Don't do it.

I'm thinking we should just use Lincoln's verbage and be done
with it.

I wasn't serious.

:)

+ Justin

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

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

"Keith G. Murphy" wrote:

It's not like the GPL really *prevents* them from contributing...

I see further down in the thread (which looks like another thread to my
somewhat-broken mailreader), that the offending wording had already been
removed/changed.

I seem to have provoked an off-topic discussion (but not the flamewar I
dreaded). Sorry I hadn't looked ahead and preempted it.

But I'm glad that the inflammatory wording is gone.

Justin Clift wrote:

Hi all,

I have an addition for it :

Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

<snip>

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)

3) Q: Can I try and convince you guys to use the GPL, or maybe even just
add the GPL to PostgreSQL?
A: No. You will be ignored and/or flamed depending on how people
feel at the time.

Probably flamed.

And probably with enthusiasm. :)

Don't do it.

4) Q: Why is it when I try to convince you guys to use the GPL, my email
server gets clobbered for days.
A: See 3.

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I am starting to agree with Thomas and others --- why mention the GPL at
all. How about this. (Again to appear at the bottom of FAQ item 1.2):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no
restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no
intention of changing it.

OK, no one is violently ill at the above wording so I will add it to the
bottom of FAQ item 1.2 until some better wording comes along. :-)

-- 
  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

Hello, alavoor!

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:03:41PM -0800, you wrote:

Gnu/GPL is the best licensing scheme for open source
products.

And first case MySQL vs Gemini will show up it's unusability in real
world.

--
NEVE-RIPE

Le Dimanche 20 Janvier 2002 22:03, alavoor a écrit :

I am proposing that in addition to UCB, all the new
code added/changed after the UCB code must be covered
under GNU/GPL.

This question has been discussed at least 100 times at least on pgsql-hackers
by PostgreSQL developpers. If you want to learn more about it, just read the
posts.

There is a large consensus not to change the present copyright, just because
it is impossible for legal reasons : all authors must agree, which is not the
case.

Best regards,
Jean-Michel POURE