From: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 05:59:44 |
Message-ID: | 40651850.3030007@zara.6.isreserved.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
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 It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that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[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.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
--
dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-27 06:03:56 | Re: Physical Database Configuration |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-03-27 05:57:37 | Re: Physical Database Configuration |