Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

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...