> The more I think on this, the less I'm sure that we *should* be changing
> anything though ... why hasn't FreeBSD (a primarily US based, BSD
> licensed, Open Source Project) changed it? Has NetBSD? OpenBSD? Why is
> it good enough for them, and all of their commercial clients and
> affiliates, but not good enough for us? Actually, just took a look at the
> COPYRIGHT that comes with FreeBSD ... shit, wait a second ... didn't the
> BSD COPYRIGHT just *have* a change? ... <insert explicitive here> ...
>
> Ya, there was a recent change, that can be seen at:
> ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ... but, if
> you look at the FreeBSD COPYRIGHT in /usr/src, I'm guessing that we've
> never kept up with *any* of the changes to the BSD COPYRIGHT ... we just
> used the one that came with Postgres95 originally and assumed that
> Berkeley never changed it ...
I totally agree with Marc on this. The GB-suggested change would:
1) Add confusion by making yet another license
2) Add protection we may not even need
3) Be very US-centric
4) Require obnoxious license approval
These are all major issues. I think getting the most recent BSD license
wording is the way to go.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
