Re: License on PostgreSQL

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 06:11:14
Message-ID: 2619.1080367874@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
>> ... I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.

> Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or
> license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page,
> "original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and
> which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think
> it's the original BSD.

This is FSF's fault then. I will write to RMS and ask him to fix the
ambiguity.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Garamond 2004-03-27 11:22:23 Re: License on PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-27 06:03:56 Re: Physical Database Configuration