>>>>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
>>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.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-09-02 17:42:01|
|Subject: Re: Sixth Draft (BSD language)|
|Previous:||From: Steve Bergman||Date: 2004-09-02 16:08:46|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL giving jitters to Skypak|