Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>>
>>>     <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
>>>     to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
>>>     Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
>>>     patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
>>>     a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
>>>     email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
>>>     please do not post the patch.</li>
>> How about something simpler:
>>
>> <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
>> submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be
>> ignored.</li>
> 
> No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
> much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
> with a BSD license.

Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my 
clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).

In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no 
desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two 
sentences. We could adjust a bit though:

<li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept 
patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be 
rejected.</li>

Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" 
to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake