Subject: Re: For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:08:30 -0700

Just for those, who like Mr Rosen wonder what my stake in this is.

I run Metatron Technology Consulting, a business which specializes in
helping small businesses utilize open source software.  One of the
projects we push most heavily at the moment is LedgerSMB (of which I
am probably the most active developer).  We advertise this software
as:
* Depending on only Open Source components.
* Usable within a 100% Open Source environment

The main fixed dependencies are:
* PostgreSQL
* Perl
* A few CPAN modules
* Some PostgreSQL contrib extensions released under the same licnese
as PostgreSQL.

We also point out that PostgreSQL is "The World's Most Advanced Open
Source RDBMS."

Comments such as those made my Mr Tiemann, "vendors who ignore our
norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a
choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license
it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label."
 The implication is clear that vendors, such as my business, should
feel safe only using the term "open source" to refer to projects under
OSI-approved licenses.

Similar comments have been made by others on this list suggesting that
one should not call a program "open source" unless and until that
license has been approved by the OSI.

I don't have any right to tell PostgreSQL to change their license.
And I am not about to fork that project just to use an OSI-approved
license.  Heck, I don't even want to bundle the software any more than
I have to.  So I feel that the best approach is to push for any of our
fixed dependencies which have OSD-compliant but not OSI-approved
licenses to be recognized by the OSI as such.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers