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

Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

From: "John Daniels" <jmd526(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Date: 2000-07-04 16:23:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers

Several people have complained about forking from the BSD license.  If the 
BSD license is so flawed, why not open the discussion to FreeBSD and other 
BSD license users.  If the license truely is flawed, it can be "fixed" for 
all.  Then no one can claim: 1) a PostgreSQL fork, 2) kow tow to corporate 

People joining this discussion have varying levels of legal knowledge. It 
seems that some clarification by a legal expert on many of these issues is 
needed.  And knowing the variability of "expertise" in the legal profession, 
and the importance of the issue, I'd recommend a second or third opinion 
(opening the discusion as above could help with this).


Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel Janík ml.Date: 2000-07-04 16:32:58
Subject: current CVS: undefined reference to `PGLZ_RAW_SIZE'
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-07-04 16:16:29
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Re: Statistical aggregates

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-07-04 16:54:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-07-04 16:04:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group