Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright

Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> When you refer to the license terms, do you mean the 'COPYRIGHT' file in
> the root directory, or is there something more?

Yeah. I have seen more extensive statements of the standard UC Berkeley
license terms (didn't BSD come with a different statement?) but that's
the one we are working with.

> Now I'm confused. I thought there was a notice stating that PostgreSQL, Inc
> had copy right? If that is the case, then they *can* sell it, and the buyer
> could revise the license terms.

Not retroactively. Someone could try to do *new* development under
more restrictive terms, or just plain do some traditional proprietary
development using Postgres as a base. They've got just as much right
to use the code in that way as you or I do to use it as we want to.
But I doubt many of the current contributors would help.

> The big advantage of a separate entity is that it has a clear charter
> and no conflict of interest.

Only to the extent that the people sitting on its board of directors
have no conflict of interest --- otherwise they could easily vote to
make the separate entity do something unhappy-making. AFAICS these
would be more or less the same people who control PostgreSQL Inc;
namely the core developers. If you don't trust them when they're
wearing one hat, why trust them when wearing another?

regards, tom lane