Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

Ron Peterson wrote:
> While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about
> all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves
> the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community.  I might suggest
> that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot.

Umm. Let's _not_ drag slashdot into this. I think any of us could easily
predict what the slashdot consensus would be (hint: less free equals
bad). And it would be bad publicity for pgsql.

> Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more
> "free".  True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone
> may use the code.  So you are "free to innovate", as it were.  Isn't
> anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition?

I can't see any cause for worry. If you want to use a closed source
database there are plenty of very good products out there. How would yet
another closed source dbms compete with open-source postgres?

The X consortium recently tried to make X less free. The community took
the most recent free X and continued development. Basicly the X
consortium were beaten into submission.

> I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community"
> prefers a BSD style license to the GPL.  Might I ask for details on how
> this conclusion was reached?

Some businesses get concerned about the licencing implications and how
it might effect their plans. For example I was working for a company
that wanted to build TV set-top boxes for internet access. Maybe they
don't want the hassle of conforming to the GPL. Of course mostly these
business concerns are pretty much ill-founded.

> I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference.  Perhaps
> they need some education.

Are you volunteering?