Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Date: 2002-01-22 03:18:10
Message-ID: 200201220317.WAA12552@www.wgcr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Monday 21 January 2002 09:41 pm, Don Baccus wrote:
> Which should be the case with PG. The original authors released it
> under the Berkely license and "which license" shouldn't be an issue. I
> still don't understand why more needs to be said. If people are too
> clueless to understand this, let them remain clueless and ignore them.

And we must consider the source of this last 'cannonade'. After all, the
laws of physics apply to software! (;-)).

Personally, I don't think our FAQ list should address this issue at all.
PostgreSQL is BSD licensed. And that's just that.

However, if the majority thinks it best to point out the reasons, the
smaller, simpler, and lowest flashpoint solution should be taken. The GPL
has its adherents, advantages, and disadvantages. The BSD license likewise.
Mutual respect amongst the parties should be followed, IMHO.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-01-22 04:22:31 Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-01-22 02:59:45 Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2002-01-22 04:22:31 Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-01-22 02:59:45 Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL