On 2015-08-13 09:32:02 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 8/12/15 9:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >>Certainly don't mind at all, entirely open source under the MIT
> >>license.
> >
> >Why not the PG license? It would be nicer if we didn't have to worry
> >about license contamination here.
I don't think MIT is particularly problematic, it's rather similar to a
3 clause BSD and both are pretty similar to PG's license.
> There are actually a few reasons I chose the MIT license:
>
> 1) It's one of the most permissive licenses around.
> 2) I originally had plans to extend backrest to other database systems.
> Nearly two years into development I don't think that sounds like a great
> idea anymore but it was the original plan.
I don't see the difference to/with postgres' license there.
Andres
