Tom Lane wrote:
>>Btw, one thing that is not immediately clear from the FAQ or the license
>>page at postgresql.org is whether the BSD "obnoxious" advertising clause
>>applies. Perhaps we need to add it.
>
> It does not apply -- the UCB Regents specifically rescinded that
> requirement some years ago, and we are by no means going to add it back.
>
> See the mail list archives if you really want the gory details. AFAIR
> we've not had a full-out flamewar about the PG license since the summer
> of 2000, and I for one don't wish to reopen the topic.
Yeah, and this is why I suggested adding a bit on this in the FAQ or
license page. The reason is, FSF lists in their license list[1] page,
"original BSD" and "modified BSD". PG license is stated as "BSD" and
which BSD that is might not be clear for some people, they might think
it's the original BSD.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
--
dave
