On 9/18/19 11:43 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
On 9/18/19 8:26 PM, Ken Tanzer
wrote:
On 9/18/19 6:03 PM, Ken
Tanzer wrote:
Charging for installing
PostgreSQL is not the same as charging
for PostgreSQL.
Bottom line: you charge for services
you provide not for software
that other people provide.
That's just really not true. There
is nothing that prohibits you from
selling Postgresql. I mean, it's not a
great business model because you can get
it for free, but there's nothing that
stops you from doing it.
Quoting Adrian Klaver in this thread from about
eight hours ago: "You cannot (legitimately)
charge the pharmacist for any part PostgresQL."
Actually that's Rob Sargent you're quoting.
Adrian took issue with that statement, as do I.
While Google isn't finding me anything that says
"Yes, you can sell Postgresql," here are a few
points:
- Point to anything in the license wording
that says you can't charge money to distribute
Postgresql. You can't.
- Even software licensed under the GPL, which
is a considerably more restrictive license,
can be sold. The free software folks consider
the right to sell as one of the freedoms
associated with free software. [1]
- The Postgresql license page says it is "a
liberal Open Source license, similar to the
BSD or MIT licenses." [2] The MIT license
itself explicitly states that it grants rights
to "sell copies of the software."
How do you sell what you don't own?
You can do so because the owners have granted you the right
to do so. They were just good enough to not charge you money
for it.
Maybe I'm too literal. I understand:
- selling physical media that software comes on,
- selling access to a server where the software resides, and
- selling a license to use software.
Selling a license to Postgres is worse than selling bottled
water, because at least the bottled water adds a few chemicals for
taste, and they put it in conveniently sized and shaped bottles.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
|
