Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left?

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Greg Stark wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> 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
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073