Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
way forward.

On 10/25/09, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Background info: Fedora/Red Hat folks (not Tom...) changed license in
> PostgreSQL spec file from BSD to MIT with the following notice:
>
> # PG considers their license to be simplified BSD, but it's more nearly
> MIT
>
> Our license wording fits perfectly to MIT, if I'm not wrong. However, we
> always advertise ourselves as using BSD license.
>
> Personally I don't think it is a big issue, but eventually I'd like to
> clarify our license in our website.
>
> ...so that I and Tom will use same License tags ;)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
> Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com
> devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
> http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
>

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start