Re: Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?

On 5 Jul 2000, Trond Eivind[iso-8859-1] Glomsrd wrote:
> Basically, GPL is intended to protect the end user and guaranteeing
> him the source if he wants it - and that he can do what he wants to
> with it, as long as he doesn't prevent others from doing so.

Which has the potential to really screw over developers who want to devote
themselves to for pay, (in this case) PostgreSQL hacking.

The threat of major pieces of code diverging is enough to assure that most
"closed source" enhancements will eventually be donated once the R&D
effort has been paid off.

We see these sort of contributions all the time in the FreeBSD project.

I don't think that the GPL or a GPL like license has anything to offer the
PostgreSQL project. Extending the liability clause seems like a smart
move, as FreeBSD has done (most new stuff is commited under a '2 clause'
BSD derived license.)

--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| winter(at)jurai(dot)net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |