[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Fsfe-france] Re: pgAdmin is proprietary software
From: |
Alexandre Dulaunoy |
Subject: |
RE: [Fsfe-france] Re: pgAdmin is proprietary software |
Date: |
Sun, 18 May 2003 23:23:01 +0200 (CEST) |
On Sun, 18 May 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexandre Dulaunoy [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: 18 May 2003 19:11
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Fsfe-france] Re: pgAdmin is proprietary software
> >
> >
> > > Question: Where exactly have we said that pgAdmin is Free
> > Software or
> > > Open Source by the FSF's definition?
> > > Answer: Nowhere.
> >
> > It's written :
> >
> > http://pgadmin.postgresql.org/pgadmin2.php?ContentID=6
> >
> > "pgAdmin II is an open source application written using Microsoft's
> > Visual Basic 6.0 Service Pack 5. It is built around 4 main
> > components:"
>
> And it is open source to take the literal interpretation of the words
> (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=open). I purposefully didn't
> write Open Source because that would imply special meaning to the words.
> I'm assuming the FSF or OSI haven't trademarked the word 'open' yet?
That's true, "Open Source" is not trademarked.
http://opensource.org/press_releases/certified-open-source.html
The discussion was around that the current license of pgAdmin. pgAdmin
is not free (following the 4 freedoms (FSF)) or "open source"
(following the OSI definition). The usage of the terms with
proprietary software is not forbidden but tend to confuse the
end-user.
>
> > Do you plan to change the licensing to be compatible with
> > the Free Software definition or the OSI definition ?
>
> I'm happy to discuss the licence to find something mutually acceptable
> to the pgAdmin Development Team and *any* interested party provided that
If I'm clearly understand, you want to have equality between the
users. That's why a free software license seems a good approach for
your project... ;-)
> party can act professionally without resorting to accusations of
> deception and general mud-slinging that we have been subjected to by
> other members of the address@hidden list.
>
> As stated before, both by myself and Jean-Michel, the primary aims of
> the pgAdmin devteam are to:
>
> - Ensure the software is *always* freely available to anyone, with
> source code if desired.
>
> - To prevent commercial exploitation of our work without due credit and
> contribution back to the project (not us, the project itself).
If I take the two points, a strong "copyleft" license is doing
that... For example, various companies love to use the GNU General
Public License in order to avoid the "stealing" of their software.
If you want contribution back in case of redistribution, the GNU
General Public License or the Affero General Public License is doing
that and quite well.
I hope we can discuss the matter friendly.
Have a nice day,
adulau
--
-- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
-- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD
-- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
-- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov