Re: License on PostgreSQL

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
Date: 2004-03-27 20:16:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-general

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
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!)