Bruce Perens wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
By having SPI join the political fray directly you are indirectly
stating that all the projects that are under its umbrella somehow
agree with the direction that the SPI is taking.
It doesn't have to be indirect. We could take a poll. We'd certainly win
on the software patenting issue, and probably on a number of others.
That will be a problem. It will be a bigger problem as more projects
join, assuming you want more projects to join.
O.k. we take a poll. 54% of members agree... what do you do about the
other 46%?
Joining is a sort of vote, too.
The long and short is there is no common effort except in the most
extreme and broadest of sense.
I can't agree. We have one issue that is poised to sink every one of our
projects if it goes badly for us, and maybe PostgreSQL first. Common
effort on that one would not be a problem.
I am sure you believe that.
There are fundamental and almost theological differences between just
BSD and GPL.
I created the definition of their common ground - in the DFSG / OSD, and
9 years later that has stood very well.
Your point. I wasn't arguing that?
Case in point, the BSD License is not GPL compatible.
I guess you didn't know, but you're arguing licensing with an Open
Source licensing expert who advises attorneys on just these issues.
Motorola, NCR, NTT, Philips, HP, Merrill Lynch have all used my services.
I know exactly who you are. I also deal with some very large companies
when it comes to licensing issues including Time Warner, ADP,
Macrovision, and NY Post.
Does that make you feel better? I could throw some more big names out
there if you like.
Of course the BSD is GPL compatible, even FSF and Richard say so. Maybe
you're talking about licenses with the old BSD advertising clause, which
even Apache has given up. The philosophy behind the two licenses is
different, and that is beyond this discussion.
I was speaking about the following:
I have PostgreSQL, I add library A to PostgreSQL which happens to be
GPL. I can no longer close source PostgreSQL without removing library A.
That is the compatibility I was speaking about.
Debian believes that everything should be Free
Debian's social contract and it's more complicated than that, and you're
arguing with the person who created it. And I'm not sure you are
portraying what the BSD camp believes properly. But that is for another
discussion.
I am in the BSD camp. I certainly do not pretend to speak for all of
them but I do speak for myself, and I am speaking properly.
I don't bring this up to start a license war, frankly I think that
both licenses have a very important role to play. However it does
underline significant differences in ideology within just the FOSS
movement.
Yes, but Joshua, we are talking about stuff I've been working on for at
least 11 years.
W00t! for you. I have been doing it for 15 (13 as a business). What's
your point?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general
