Re: proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license

Ned,

Thanks for inviting the community to participate in this discussion. I
wonder, though, if you might like to invite the participation of a wider
audience. While I'm sure the subscribers to this list are fervent about
all matters related to PostgreSQL, perhaps the subject matter deserves
the scrutiny of a larger and more diverse community. I might suggest
that beloved cesspool of civil discord - Slashdot.

As for the particulars of your proposal, I'd like to suggest, and I see
others agree, that it would still be premature to table the discussion
of GPL vs. BSD style licensing. If for no other reason than if not now,
when?

There seem to be two primary objectives here: (1) protect contributers
from liability. (2) maintain the code as open source.

I don't really understand liability issues or how they relate to the GPL
(or any other license for that matter). I'm certainly 100% in favor of
protecting PostgreSQL developers from court claims, of course. So I'm
not going to chime in about liability issues.

One objection to the use of the GPL has been that it has never been
tested in court. That may soon change. See
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2000/1/.

Then of course there's the discussion about which license is really more
"free". True, a BSD style license places no restrictions on how someone
may use the code. So you are "free to innovate", as it were. Isn't
anyone worried that PostgreSQL might become it's own competition?

> ...we're big fans of the current Berkeley license; we find it
> more "open" than other open source licenses, in the sense that the
> user/hacker has almost total freedom as to what he wants to do with
> the code.
-Ned Lilly

To me, it's the difference between the freedom of anarchy, and the
freedom afforded by good government. Licenses are inherently
restrictive. That's the whole point of having them. This is true even
for BSD style licenses. So the question is not "do you ask the users of
your software to make any concessions?". Of course you do. The
question is just what concessions do you require before granting use of
your product. Any statement to the effect that BSD is "really free" is
just navel gazing mumbo jumbo.

I keep seeing mention of the "fact" that the "business community"
prefers a BSD style license to the GPL. Might I ask for details on how
this conclusion was reached?

> We've also found, through some rather extensive market
> research, that the business community (to which we'll be selling
> products and services) vastly prefers it over GPL, or hybrids like
> Mozilla, etc.
-Ned Lilly

I would submit that most businesses don't know the difference. Perhaps
they need some education.

I would also submit that that the manner in which a survey was conducted
could greatly influence it's own results.

Q: "Do you prefer a GPL or BSD style license?"
A: "What's the difference?"
Q: "A BSD style license gives you more flexibility in how you administer
changes you might make to the software."
A: "Well, then BSD of course."

Nevermind that this same business might be running half of its back end
services using GPL'd software.

How about "Would you like to know that you can take advantage of
contributions made to this software by anyone working on it worldwide?",
or "Would you like a *guarantee* that the core development team won't
duck tail and make you start paying for certain improvements?"

I'm not accusing anyone of malicious intentions. I'm just saying that
the only *guarantee* of good intentions is the license associated with
the software.

Throw my response into the survey: my business would prefer GPL'd
software.

-Ron-