| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT |
| Date: | 2009-10-26 13:13:23 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10910260613i60ed4d4fn337a982fbdb884a8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.
>
> If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?
Because they categorise licences to help their users. It's just a label.
> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
> that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
> licence because of it being widely misdescribed.
Already in hand.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2009-10-26 13:14:03 | Re: table corrupted |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-26 13:12:17 | Re: Parsing config files in a directory |