Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
>> needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
>> he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
>> says "similar to the MIT License".
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
Yeah. The short form of this is that there is not very much difference
between MIT-style and "simplified" (2-clause) BSD-style. Red Hat
(specifically Fedora) decided to lump all such licenses as "MIT-style"
rather than using the phrase "simplified BSD". That's not binding on
anybody else, it's just how they choose to classify licenses.
There is a significant difference between 2-, 3-, and 4-clause BSD
licenses, as the extra clauses ("no-endorsement" and "advertising"
respectively) do make a difference in practice. But Postgres has
never had either of those.
regards, tom lane
