| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, alavoor <alavoor(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Date: | 2002-01-22 06:38:02 |
| Message-ID: | 3C4D08CA.1B8EA385@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-22 06:49:06 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-22 06:00:25 | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-22 06:49:06 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-22 06:00:25 | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |