[X86BSD]

So you take a BSDL codebase, fork it, close it, make proprietary changes, profiting from the BSDL codebase, then slap the PG community in the face by open sourcing it under a more restrictive license hoping to benefit from the community you just slapped in the face but restricting competition.

They are of course free to release their code under any license they wish. I just think releasing code under the *GPL when you profited from a liberal BSDL is a douche nozzle thing to do. But knock yourself out! This tells me all I need to know about the company.

[tspiteri]

I don't agree with you. The PG community is, I think, fine with that: that's exactly what the BSDL allows that the GPL doesn't, and they chose the BSDL. If the PG community don't like that, I really don't understand why they chose the BSDL.

[mixedCase]

If the pg community did not intend their database to be used that way, they would've chosen a copyleft license. Have you considered that this is part of their intention?

Would CitusDB have been created at all were it not because they could sell a propietary fork as they have been doing in the past?

[icebraining]

I also have qualms about distributing changes to non-copyleft license code under a copyleft license, but it seems strange to make this the "slap in the face" moment - wasn't distributing them under a proprietary license even worse?

[X86BSD]

No that IS what the BSDL allows for. I wasn't arguing that they shouldn't have made a commercial product on BSDL code. That also was within their rights using said BSDL code. It's just my opinion that to do that, then release your proprietary "bits" under the GPL or variation thereof with more restrictions than what you started with instead of the same BSDL you used to start your business is a dickheaded douche nozzle thing to do. But again they are free to do that, it's within their rights! Just don't be shocked when people like me call you out for what you are. Keep on rocking Citus! Stay classy.

[icebraining]

I understand you weren't saying they don't have the right to do so, I just find it weird that you consider distributing it under the AGPL to be douchy, while not considering the distribution under a proprietary licence to be (even more) douchy.

[anonbanker]

A relicense is a relicense. When you impose new rules on a product, especially if you weren't the original author, is rude.

I'm a GPL zealot, to the point that I've used the GPL as a weapon and as a shield against others in multiple capacities ("You own all my code when you employ me? Sure, as long as I get to dictate the license"). However, I would never take someone's 2 or 3-clause BSD-licensed product, and relicense. Those of us that value sofware freedom value the rights of other licenses that believe the same.

We all see why it was done in this case, however; In order to ensure software freedom in the cloud (someone else's computer), there isn't another license to use. the BSD license completely breaks down in this use scenario, and the best we have is AGPL.

I'd say cloud usage is to 3-clause BSD what Tivo was to GPLv2.

[manigandham]

Entire industries have profited from BSDL licensed code without contributing anything back. This is the point of BSDL.