-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Doug Quale wrote:
| Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
|
|
|>The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
|>license." They felt a need to distinguish between different
|>variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'
|>
|>The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
|>considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
|>terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
|>(again in their terms).
|
|
| No, that's not what the FSF says. All the BSD licenses are considered
| free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.) Most BSD licenses
| are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a
| problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the
| GPL.
|
| The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
| compatible.
Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?
Not that I would, just curious. And even if I did, it would be a severly
castrated postgresql, as the history of the "My" particle suggests :))
~ - sorry I couldn't resist.
Cheers,
- --
Radu-Adrian Popescu
CSA, DBA, Developer
Aldratech Ltd.
+40213212243
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAZF2TVZmwYru5w6ERAsL4AJsH8ap61BO6i7i5dJ0rDmWFQ9270ACglcUL
fuQ+y2GN8lC30TTdloqhId0=
=lEP9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
