On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:33 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> No - pgFoundry projects are licenced and copyright-attributed as their
> >> authors see fit (as long as it's an open source licence of course).
> >
> > Yes, are they open source licences?
>
> All the options on pgFoundry are, yes.
>
> >> The PostgreSQL Licence is not the same as any of the BSD variants, so
> >> that is not a safe presumption to make.
> >
> > If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open
> > source licence must also be unclear.
>
> Not at all. If it's listed on www.opensource.org, then a licence is
> "open source". Why do you think I busted a gut to get the PostgreSQL
> licence approved when we realised it wasn't BSD?
Dave, this is important and so this thread must have a clear resolution,
so we must stick to a single point and be clear about our logic and our
statements.
You're saying these two things, I think, or if you or anybody else
disagrees, please so clearly.
* When project realised that the PostgreSQL licence wasn't actually a
BSD licence, that PostgreSQL was clarified to be the TPL, yet pgfoundry
was not covered by that clarification for some reason.
* In the absence of any licence text in any of the files of a project on
a certain date, then if the project is advertised on PgFoundry on that
date as having a "BSD licence" then the software will be covered by
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
