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: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote:
>>Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license 
>>page at 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 It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that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.



In response to


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 © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group