From: | "Peter Galbavy" <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Eric Yum" <eric(dot)yum(at)ck-lifesciences(dot)com>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: License for PostgreSQL for commercial purpose |
Date: | 2004-03-29 07:10:41 |
Message-ID: | 001801c4155d$5c680800$24e0a8c0@sonylaptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
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
interpretation.
> 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.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/databases/postgresql/Makefile?rev=1.65&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
I also note this exact issue was discussed last year on pgsql-general.
Peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Muhammad Imran | 2004-03-29 12:27:26 | Connection problem |
Previous Message | Victor Sudakov | 2004-03-29 05:07:16 | possible bug with sequences |