Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT
Date: 2009-10-26 15:40:36
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
> think in change our license i think...
> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
> sold just as MySQL was...

Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.

Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2009-10-26 15:40:54 Re: Parsing config files in a directory
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2009-10-26 15:36:52 Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT