Jan Wieck wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Jan Wieck wrote: > >> Greg Stark wrote: > >> > >> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone > >> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. > >> > > >> > Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that > >> > imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft > >> > Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. > >> > Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd "GNU Postgresql" they could do > >> > it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. > >> > >> I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is > >> only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed > >> something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code? > > > > We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a > > proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from > > doing the same. > > > > The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software. > But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to > remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd > need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong?
You know, that is a good point. When someone makes a proprietary version of PostgreSQL, what are they licensing as proprietary? The binary or our source code? When someone takes our code, modifies it, then makes a propriety version, are their additions only proprietary? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
