Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> Why not just say that PG was originally developed at Berkeley, and
> released by them under the BSD licence? You could simply point out that
> PG has flourished as a project releasing code under that license, it
> ain't broke, and there ain't anything to fix.
Y'know, this has got a lot of merit to it.
See also my reply to Tom Lockhart. We've seen the "why isn't PG under
GPL" question often enough that it clearly merits a FAQ entry. The
purpose of a FAQ entry is to save time for both askers and answerers.
Potential askers should not be left with the illusion that they might
change the already-thoroughly-considered decision by asking Yet One More
Time. Ye weary answerers have other things to do than respond Yet One
More Time. If we make a FAQ entry, the one thing I require of it is
that it be absolutely, pellucidly, crystal clear that there is not scope
for more discussion. "It ain't broke and we aren't gonna fix it" seems
to meet the need admirably.
regards, tom lane
