On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
>> think in change our license i think...
>> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
>> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
>> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
>> sold just as MySQL was...
> Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.
to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
if the wording doesn't change...
that's because we have years telling people our license is BSD like
and is very liberal, if we change the way we label our license we have
to change that and say our license is MIT like and when you do that
the question will arise: "what was that change for?" and you will
explain that the license hadn't changed but the mind of the users is
not listening anymore it's very busy trying to find for themselves
hidden reasons and they will find them even if that reasons doesn't
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2009-10-26 16:17:46|
|Subject: Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-10-26 16:09:27|
|Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost|