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 11:22:23
Message-ID: 406563EF.6000203@zara.6.isreserved.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Tom Lane wrote:
>>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.
> 
> This is FSF's fault then.  I will write to RMS and ask him to fix the
> ambiguity.

Before you do (and I think we don't need to because my wording above is 
not very good)...

I was not saying that _FSF_ lists PG on that page. I was saying that 
_the PG website_ states PG license as "BSD", without using the 
additional attribute "modern" or "modified". People who read the FSF 
license page might think PG BSD license is not the modern/modified one.

-- 
dave


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2004-03-27 13:35:33
Subject: Re: 7.4.2 on Solaris 9 - Error
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-03-27 06:11:14
Subject: Re: License on PostgreSQL

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