On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>>> if the wording doesn't change...
>> So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.
> I'm of the opinion that we should continue to say that it's simplified
> BSD. It's not our problem that Red Hat has chosen not to use that
> terminology (which OSI uses, so it's not like there's no precedent).
> Red Hat has an interest in minimizing the number of pigeonholes they
> classify things into, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care.
Except it is not the simplified BSD - it's notably different. That's
Redhat's argument, and was also the comment that the lawyer I spoke to
> I quite agree with Jaime that starting to call ourselves MIT rather than
> BSD would be a public-relations disaster.
You already know I agree with that :-)
I'm working on getting the licence through the OSI approval process.
When/if that is done, I expect we'll have 'The PostgreSQL License'
which we can then describe as being *similar* to the simplified BSD.
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2009-10-26 16:55:52|
|Subject: Re: table corrupted|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2009-10-26 16:30:25|
|Subject: Anonymous Code Blocks as Lambdas?|