| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT |
| Date: | 2009-10-26 08:56:22 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10910260156x1bfb2b5du6ed59371c23e300@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/10/26 David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>:
> Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
> are pretty much on our side,
They're not really. They're just interested in doing things the right
way for Redhat users (which is fine - that's what they're paid for).
> I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or
> 2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion. Thanks! :)
I've also spoken to a lawyer about this, and he concurred that our
licence is more MIT-like in the way that its worded. It has roughly
the same requirements as the simplified BSD though - but then so do a
bunch of other OSI approved licences.
As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
based on or looks like.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2009-10-26 12:49:02 | 8.4.1 strange GiST (btree_gist?) messages + index row size error (possible BUG, test case + test data) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-10-26 08:56:12 | Re: Tightening binary receive functions |