Re: Sixth Draft (BSD language)
От | Ned Lilly |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sixth Draft (BSD language) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 41375592.5080807@nedscape.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sixth Draft (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sixth Draft (BSD language)
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
>>>>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD-style license, which due to its >>>>lack of licensing fees allows corporate and individual users more >>>>flexibility than the competition. >>> >>>This is an incorrect interpretation of the licensing situation. >>>There are plenty of licenses that are granted free of charge but >>>still leave the recipient without any flexibility. The advantage of >>>the BSD license is the lack of restrictions on modication and >>>distribution. >> >>I suggested, separately, a "more flexible" :-) wording for this. >> >>One of the benefits of the BSD license is that it means that users are >>not left agonizing over which license, from a "dueling licenses" >>structure, applies to them. They can do as they need to without >>needing to worry about licensing fees or choices. > > > The problem with this approach is that it singles out one specific > company and it's license model while ignoring the real targets like > oracle and db2... perhaps a kindler, gentler approach: > > "PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license, giving maximum > flexibility for both commercial and noncommercial use. This puts our > users in control of how PostgreSQL is deployed in their organizations, > not us, which is how we feel it should be." The original language I suggested was: PostgreSQL is released under a "BSD-style" license, which allows maximum flexibility for corporate and individual users,with no license fees regardless of how the software is used. I think that offers a good contrast to both MySQL and the commercial competitors.
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: