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 |
Message-ID: | 8098.1080418579@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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
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!) |