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

Re: License on PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
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 20:16:19
Message-ID: 8098.1080418579@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

Actually, the FSF page doesn't seem to refer to the BSD license per se;
they always talk about either "original BSD" or "modified BSD", and they
are perfectly clear that the advertising clause is the difference.
I don't think anyone would be likely to get confused, or to be unable to
figure out that PG's license doesn't have the advertising clause.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Terry Lee TuckerDate: 2004-03-27 22:09:37
Subject: Re: Passing a row
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-27 19:43:08
Subject: Re: win32 users list (Re: Native Win32 port - PLEASE!)

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