In the new world, no one cares that there are proprietary forks of Postgres. Proprietary software and free/open source software can coexist peacefully in our ne

In the new world, no one cares that there are proprietary forks of Postgres. Proprietary software and free/open source software can coexist peacefully in our new world. For example, the PostgreSQL project isn't harmed by CitusDB making a proprietary extension. Citus even decided to open source part of their extension, resulting in a net win for the PostgreSQL community. If PostgreSQL was GPL, Citus probably wouldn't contribute anything. Or take EnterpriseDB, probably the largest fork of PostgreSQL. Yes, they have a proprietary product that they sell to enterprise customers. But just a quick look at the Postgres hackers mailing list shows that the developers at EnterpriseDB make significant contributions to the PostgreSQL project, even though a part of their work is closed source. And I'm in a similar position: I make a living from selling a closed source client I developed for Postgres. But I also maintain Postgres.app, a completely open source server GUI for running PostgreSQL on OS X. If I couldn't sell licenses for my closed source app, I couldn't work on the open source project. (People just don't pay for open source software unless they need support. If your goal is to make software that doesn't need support, you're fucked.). I understand that Stallman objects to proprietary software in principle. If you follow that school of thought, then the GPL is the way to go. But if you don't care about proprietary software -- as long as enough open source software is available -- then the new world has a lot of liberal licenses to choose from. In this new world, open source hackers and for-profit enterprises work together, instead of fighting another.