Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: License on PostgreSQL

From: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Eric Yum <eric(dot)yum(at)ck-lifesciences(dot)com>,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License on PostgreSQL
Date: 2004-03-27 05:59:44
Message-ID: 40651850.3030007@zara.6.isreserved.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote:
>>Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license 
>>page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause 
>>applies. Perhaps we need to add it.
> 
> It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
> requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.
> 
> See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details.  AFAIR
> we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
> of 2000, and I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.

Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or 
license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page, 
"original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and 
which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think 
it's the original BSD.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

-- 
dave


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-03-27 06:03:56
Subject: Re: Physical Database Configuration
Previous:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2004-03-27 05:57:37
Subject: Re: Physical Database Configuration

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group