Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Tom Lane writes:

[...]
> many PostgreSQL developers feel the GPL contains restrictions that
> would limit the ability of commercial entities to contribute or
> continue contributing to the codebase, and question the need for such
> restrictions. In light of these issues, we will continue with the
> BSD license for the foreseeable future.

If that is actually true, then "many PostgreSQL developers" are completely
missing the point. (Or possibly the commercial entities are missing the
point.)

If commercial entity A writes code C, then A owns the copyright on C and A
can relicense C in any way they want. In particular A can contribute C to
a "community" GPL code base and can sell C in a closed-source product at
the same time.

For commercial entities, the main difference between a BSD license and the
GPL is that they can add their own code and sell the result closed-source
*without* having to effectively contribute it to the community sources.
But in that case they're not actually "contributing", as you write, and
the open project could care less.

As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give
away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net