| 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 11:22:23 |
| Message-ID: | 406563EF.6000203@zara.6.isreserved.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>>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.
Before you do (and I think we don't need to because my wording above is
not very good)...
I was not saying that _FSF_ lists PG on that page. I was saying that
_the PG website_ states PG license as "BSD", without using the
additional attribute "modern" or "modified". People who read the FSF
license page might think PG BSD license is not the modern/modified one.
--
dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-03-27 13:35:33 | Re: 7.4.2 on Solaris 9 - Error |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-27 06:11:14 | Re: License on PostgreSQL |