Tom Lane wrote:
>>Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
>>page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
>>applies. Perhaps we need to add it.
> It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
> requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.
> See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details. AFAIR
> we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
> of 2000, and 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 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.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-03-27 06:03:56|
|Subject: Re: Physical Database Configuration |
|Previous:||From: Bruno Wolff III||Date: 2004-03-27 05:57:37|
|Subject: Re: Physical Database Configuration|