Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:

    <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
    to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
    Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
    patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
    a BSD-compatible license (eg. public domain), please note that in your
    email submission.  If the license is not BSD-compatible (e.g. GPL),
    please do not post the patch.</li>
How about something simpler:

<li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. Patches that are
submitted another a non-compatible license (such as the GPL) will be

No, I don't people even seeing GPL patches on our lists.  There is too
much of a chance of accident, and possible problems if we re-implemented
with a BSD license.

Neither clause solves the issue you describe here. The only thing my clause does it make it so people might actually read it ;).

In general, people have very short attention spans and they have no desire to read a long paragraph about something that is really two sentences. We could adjust a bit though:

<li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. We will only accept patches that are submitted under a BSD license. All others shall be rejected.</li>

Using the word rejected provides a sense of us declaring outright, "NO" to anything but BSD versus an implicit ignoring.



Joshua D. Drake

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to