|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Eric Yum <eric(dot)yum(at)ck-lifesciences(dot)com>,pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: License on PostgreSQL|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
Actually, the FSF page doesn't seem to refer to the BSD license per se;
they always talk about either "original BSD" or "modified BSD", and they
are perfectly clear that the advertising clause is the difference.
I don't think anyone would be likely to get confused, or to be unable to
figure out that PG's license doesn't have the advertising clause.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Terry Lee Tucker||2004-03-27 22:09:37||Re: Passing a row|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2004-03-27 19:43:08||Re: win32 users list (Re: Native Win32 port - PLEASE!)|