| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Date: | 2002-01-21 06:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | 3C4BBB9D.EDE7A99A@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
...
> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Holger Krug | 2002-01-21 06:58:57 | Re: pl/pgsql Composite Parameter Question |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-21 06:49:48 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-21 07:04:21 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-21 06:49:48 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |