| 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 03:49:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1474.1080359360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
> page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
> applies. Perhaps we need to add it.
It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.
See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details. AFAIR
we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
of 2000, and I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-03-27 05:57:37 | Re: Physical Database Configuration |
| Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-27 03:29:42 | win32 users list (Re: Native Win32 port - PLEASE!) |