Re: money handling

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/