Tom Lane wrote:
>>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.
>
> This is FSF's fault then. I will write to RMS and ask him to fix the
> ambiguity.
Before you do (and I think we don't need to because my wording above is
not very good)...
I was not saying that _FSF_ lists PG on that page. I was saying that
_the PG website_ states PG license as "BSD", without using the
additional attribute "modern" or "modified". People who read the FSF
license page might think PG BSD license is not the modern/modified one.
--
dave
