|
From: Michael P. <mic...@gm...> - 2012-07-14 01:29:59
|
> > > > I am just saying that anything from the Postgres-XC Development Group > > could be like the PostgreSQL Development Group and allow liberal > > usage. If someone does not want to allow liberal usage, then they put > > it under their own name or company name instead of the Postgres-XC > > Development Group, and under any such license that they choose (is > > that more similar to how PostgreSQL also operates?). It seems like an > > easy way to avoid disagreements and avoid adding bylaws, committees > > and bureaucracy. > > > > Yes, it does keep it simple for the community. However, there are > perfectly valid arguments for other structures that are also positive. > For example, if the docs are licensed in a way that allows free sharing > but not for commercial use, if someone wants to use them commercially > there could be a defined fee/donation to the community that gets paid. > That fee can help with things like having testing clusters. > True. XC activities are now uniquely funded by NTT. Diversifying the sources of funding is necessary to reinforce the economical model and the independency of the project. That said, I sit on the fundraising group, the sponsorship committee, > and am a director for Pg.US and SPI. Meetings are a pain :P > Hehe :) > Personally, if I have a vote the license (for Postgres-XC as well but > let's not start that thread) would not be BSD, but LGPL. The LGPL allows > people to commercialize the product BUT and here is the big BUT, it > requires that any changes to the product must also be given back. For > our docs, that could be a real boon, please use them commercially, > please sell them, please change them as much as you like but understand > that you must give all those improvements back to the community as well. > LGLP might be a possibility in the future to insure the economical model of the project. So is is true that this cannot be excluded. However, XC stays BSD now. -- Michael Paquier http://michael.otacoo.com |