> But the biggest reason why PostgreSQL would not change its license is the disservice it would do to all PostgreSQL users. It takes a long time to build trust in a technology that is often used for the most critical part of an application: storage and retrieval of data<p>> Changing the license of PostgreSQL would shatter all of the goodwill the project has built up through the past (nearly) 30 years.<p>I love Postgres and I have no reason to think they would change their license. But IMO any type of "it would be a disservice to users" is useless. This blog post itself is in response to Redis changing their license after 15 years. Surely this would be a disservice to their users?<p>Businesses have proven time and time again - They will absolutely cause a "disservice to users" or "harm the product" once money is involved.<p>Again I recognize the way PostgresQL is structured gives me hope this wouldn't happen, but a simple "we wouldn't break user trust" is meaningless.