On Thursday 28 March 2013, Cowboy wrote: > GPL is more of a communist manifesto than a software > license, so I'd expect Oracle ( or anyone else, for that > matter ) to have some issues with it.
> Personally, I've always favored Postgres, as it's true "open > source," and doesn't carry the restrictions of GPL. It's > pretty much a BSD license. About the only restriction is > that you can't sue the Regents of the University of > California if you break it. But you can sue the students who wrote the code. The issue is not "if you break it" but rather about patent and copyright issues. The license is (or at least should be) a statement of the intent of the authors. To disagree with the way a particular software is licensed is to disagree with the intent of the authors who chose that license. GPL is all about sharing among peers, and protection of the rights of everyone (including the authors) to use and share. The BSD license is all about technology transfer, encouraging the creation of proprietary derivative works. It's not at all about more or less "free". Any license applies only to those who are not owners. The owners can do whatever they want regardless of how they license it to others. Note that "owners" and "authors" are often not the same. _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
