Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT
Date: 2009-10-26 13:08:00
Message-ID: 1256562480.8450.11140.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.

If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?

ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
licence because of it being widely misdescribed.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-10-26 13:11:39 Re: Proposal: String key space for advisory locks
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-10-26 13:04:11 Re: Parsing config files in a directory