Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PostgreSQL 11 Beta 2 Released With VACUUM & XML Fixes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Then it is not free software.
    It is free it just has a condition, just like gpl.

    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Yes, there would still be a problem, since if it is a BSD-style license, but it is not the BSD license, then it is a vanity license that contributes to license proliferation.
    I'm still not convinced. What license should everyone adhere and why? Just because some foundation says so? Jeez i lost count of the number osi have given the nod to & fsf is just a front for gnu. Meanwhile dfsg is just a distraction.


    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    License proliferation is a concern regardless of what license you prefer, it has nothing to do with GPL per se.
    Perhaps most users can click pass the license before reading it, but in the corporate world it is different, then you can't just ignore licenses and everything has to pass through company lawyers, and that cost money.
    not if every license was bsd/mit or pd. Corporates run a mile from gpl, as intended. For individuals, as i said, they're irrelevant & basically unenforceable. You see enforcement attempts only when a company 'steals' a restrictively licensed (read gpl) piece of software.
    And yes, i think non-bsd licenses are bad. If everyone used bsd then no proliferation would occur & no lawyers would be involved. That solves both your issues.
    Simple...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
      It is free it just has a condition, just like gpl.
      You don't seem to understand the GPL.
      The GPL is free for use. The conditions only applies to redistribution.

      Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
      I'm still not convinced. What license should everyone adhere and why? Just because some foundation says so? Jeez i lost count of the number osi have given the nod to & fsf is just a front for gnu. Meanwhile dfsg is just a distraction.
      I don't care what license, I don't endorse any specific license. I am not in favor of any license over the other.
      Nor am in favor of any specific foundation. But I think it should be a license that has been approved by the community.
      So if a license is approved by the FSF, the OSI and the DFSG then speaks that it is a license has been approved by the community.
      The even if the BSD and the PostgreSQL License were to be identical, then I am in favor of the BSD license, simply by the fact that is more commonly used and approved by the community.

      Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
      not if every license was bsd/mit or pd. Corporates run a mile from gpl, as intended. For individuals, as i said, they're irrelevant & basically unenforceable. You see enforcement attempts only when a company 'steals' a restrictively licensed (read gpl) piece of software.
      And yes, i think non-bsd licenses are bad. If everyone used bsd then no proliferation would occur & no lawyers would be involved. That solves both your issues.
      Simple...
      I don't know why you keep talking about the GPL. Nobody here have even mentioned it.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        You don't seem to understand the GPL.
        The GPL is free for use. The conditions only applies to redistribution.
        so is patting my dog - wherever it happens it's still a condition. Gpl is not free to use, it is conditional on you releasing your code changes whether you want to or not. It has dozens of paragraphs to tell you it's free. Yeah right. Its convoluted nonsense. Try using a gpl library in your code, can't do, unless you license all you code under it. Oh, yes, I'm well aware of the insidiousness of gpl. I think the people at freebsd sum it up perfectly, it's a license system designed to keep software from ever reaching commercialisation:

        The GPL is an attempt to keep efforts, regardless of demand, at the research and development stages. This maximizes the benefits to researchers and developers, at an unknown cost to those who would benefit from wider distribution.


        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        I don't care what license, I don't endorse any specific license. I am not in favor of any license over the other.
        Nor am in favor of any specific foundation. But I think it should be a license that has been approved by the community.
        So if a license is approved by the FSF, the OSI and the DFSG then speaks that it is a license has been approved by the community.
        The even if the BSD and the PostgreSQL License were to be identical, then I am in favor of the BSD license, simply by the fact that is more commonly used and approved by the community.


        I don't know why you keep talking about the GPL. Nobody here have even mentioned it.
        well gpl's a license. I'm telling you that your worry about license proliferation is misplaced when you're arguing about postgres's bsd-like license. It's not complex like gpl, it doesn't take a lawyer to understand it, it is the best and therefore is not an example of license proliferation. basically adding one paragraph to a license that almost exactly mirrors a bsd license does not make things complex. instead gpl is because so many people/organizations dislike it they come up with their own, like oracle's ooen source or previous sun ones.

        community approval only comes from adoption of a license, whether they understand it or not, not from some crowd of self-appointed arbiters of 'the best license'. Even these community groups you cite can't agree on their lists of approved licenses. So you're doomed, unless people pick the best license, with no encumbrances: bsd/mit-like licenses. Everything else leads to proliferation and complexity.

        the cat's already out of the bag:
        https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.IS.../licenses.html
        Last edited by Bsdisbetter; 07-12-2018, 10:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by nanonyme View Post

          Have you gone and asked the PostgreSQL peeps what the exact reason for them not using a common license is? Maybe there no longer isn't any and they could switch
          Check their website; they're adamant it will remain as is and won't become gpl - a win-win. Switching to GPLvX would be a terrible shame.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post

            Check their website; they're adamant it will remain as is and won't become gpl - a win-win. Switching to GPLvX would be a terrible shame.
            I would really like them to switch it to BSD.
            Even if the legalese would be the same, it would still be a win, because then it wouldn't be a vanity license.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post

              I would really like them to switch it to BSD.
              Even if the legalese would be the same, it would still be a win, because then it wouldn't be a vanity license.
              yes, i'd like to see all licenses switch to bsd/mit like also. Dump gpl, cc, apache... they're all nonsense applied by most who dont understand them.

              Sorry but i dont undertand your concept of a vanity license. Reading the postgresql license, it adds two paragraphs about acknowledging others but the top is basically bsd. i'm pretty sure 90% of licenses out there demand acknowledgement; if that's what you mean by 'vanity'...

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post

                yes, i'd like to see all licenses switch to bsd/mit like also. Dump gpl, cc, apache... they're all nonsense applied by most who dont understand them.

                Sorry but i dont undertand your concept of a vanity license. Reading the postgresql license, it adds two paragraphs about acknowledging others but the top is basically bsd. i'm pretty sure 90% of licenses out there demand acknowledgement; if that's what you mean by 'vanity'...
                A vanity license is any license written just to have an own license instead of using an existing license.
                I am fine with a license including acknowledgements. The 4-clause BSD license includes that paragraph.
                So I would be fine with a 4-clause BSD license.
                My problem is taking a license, then renaming it. Even if the license is exact the same, it just having another name makes it a vanity license and leads to license proliferation.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post

                  A vanity license is any license written just to have an own license instead of using an existing license.
                  I am fine with a license including acknowledgements. The 4-clause BSD license includes that paragraph.
                  So I would be fine with a 4-clause BSD license.
                  My problem is taking a license, then renaming it. Even if the license is exact the same, it just having another name makes it a vanity license and leads to license proliferation.
                  So in summary you don't like individual licenses because it results in more licenses, whether or not those licenses are complex doesn't matter, so you assume the existing licenses fit the bill, which is clearly wrong. Second, only Bsd/mit license can meet your criteria.

                  As i said i could live with a million variations of bsd/mit because there is no possible issue, but just one gpl, 1 aoache and one cc-variant is a horrendous state for developers. Take a look at texas file system on this forum, there's 11 messages discussing the license. LOL. Gpl is such a crock...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X