From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Shachar Shemesh <psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: License question |
Date: | 2004-04-23 00:34:49 |
Message-ID: | 1082680489.32307.1077.camel@jeff |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at
> the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like
> license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license
> by now.
>
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html
They look very similar to me. What's the difference?
Also, I'm a little confused. If you mix some postgresql-licensed code
with some (for example) gpl-licensed code, is the end result:
(a) GPL, since that's the more restrictive of the two; or
(b) The gpl code is still gpl, and the postgresql code is still
postgresql-licensed?
"b" makes more sense to me, since I don't see how you can "relicense"
the code if it's not yours.
Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-04-23 01:00:22 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-23 00:28:31 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |