Re: responses to licensing discussion

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: chris(at)bitmead(dot)com
Cc: PostgreSQL GENERAL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: responses to licensing discussion
Date: 2000-07-05 05:32:33
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20000705153233.024326a0@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

At 15:11 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
>fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
>along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
>Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you
>have no contract with is pretty tenuous.
>

They key issue here (I'd guess) is where the software came from.

But I agree - it's just a total nightmare when you start getting into this.
eg. one of the questions I am waiting on an answer for if whether Marc can
be sued because he provided the software from his server.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2000-07-05 05:34:41 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-07-05 05:24:32 Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license