On 8/13/15 9:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps just me but it was really about perception. If I extended
BackRest to work with MySQL (shudders) then I thought it would be weird
if it used the PostgreSQL license.
Anyway, now BackRest is now pretty solidly pgBackRest and I don't have
any immediate plans to port to other database systems so the point is
probably moot.
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
