Tom Lane wrote:
> Neither of those readings is correct. The correct interpretation is
> that the copyright holders (us and UCB, in the case of Postgres)
> aren't charging any fee. This does not prohibit others from charging
> for their own efforts.
As I said in my original reply, intention has little bearing to (legal)
reality. The legal advice received by some, including the OpenBSD project -
so I understand, is that the wording is not clear enough and is open to
> To read it as prohibiting fees for redistribution would mean that, for
> example, no Linux distribution could include BSD-licensed software
> (at least not on CD sets that they charge money for). I don't know of
> anyone who thinks that is appropriate or intended.
See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for some of that project's view. This
specific issue if not discusses, but note that sadly PostgreSQL is not
distributed on the CD-ROm for this exact very reason. i.e.
I also note this exact issue was discussed last year on pgsql-general.
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Muhammad Imran||Date: 2004-03-29 12:27:26|
|Subject: Connection problem|
|Previous:||From: Victor Sudakov||Date: 2004-03-29 05:07:16|
|Subject: possible bug with sequences|