| From: | "Robert D(dot) Nelson" <RDNELSON(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | John Daniels <jmd526(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tgl <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | RE: PostgreSQL & the BSD License |
| Date: | 2000-07-10 14:36:00 |
| Message-ID: | 39699DAC@rba6.rbapro.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>I'll ask, but I think he'll say that the license applies to the source; if
>a commercial fork was made, then they are free to hide the source. But if
>they ever release the source, then it has to go under the BSD again.
What I was asking was, if someone forks the code base, aren't they allowed
to change their license? It would only make sense that they distinguish
themselves as the developers of the new code fork, right?
So, can't the code be forked in such a way that no code changes, and only
the license?
Rob Nelson
rdnelson(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-07-10 14:48:38 | RE: PostgreSQL & the BSD License |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-10 14:29:40 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL vs. MySQL |