[Resending; I accidentally failed to copy the list.]
Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)initd(dot)org> wrote:
> the logical choice is plain LGPL3. I am open to motivated
> suggestions about other licenses but I'll ignore such crap as "BSD
> is more open than LGPL".
Well, I don't know about "more open", but I find the PostgreSQL BSD-
derived license easier to understand.
And I suspect that some of these requirements of LGPL might make it
unlikely to be considered as something that can be shipped with
PostgreSQL. (Yeah, I'm looking at *you*, section 4.)
> DISCLAIMER. If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing
> 1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient".
> 2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit
> and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke
> as it lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or
> the WWW.
> 3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your
> 4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality
> that may be included on your message.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joachim Wieland||Date: 2010-02-09 15:33:23|
|Subject: Re: Pathological regexp match|
|Previous:||From: Mark Mielke||Date: 2010-02-09 14:53:17|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.|