How about instead looking at this issue by trying to define a short
statement about postgres which should be included in every release,
and mentions the license. This is typically how this problem would be
approached in any other PR situation. I think most folks agree that
the license aspect of PG is very appealing and should be called out
as often as possible. By incorporating it into some kind of standard
language that's included in all PG-related releases and
communications, releases can focus on new features and 'news' while
still including the crucial BSD license advantage.
I'm not sure if this is already in place, but I figure its a good way
to approach the issue.
___________________________________
Javier Soltero
Hyperic | www.hyperic.net
o- 415 738 2566 | c- 415 305 8733
javier.soltero@hyperic.net
___________________________________
On Sep 30, 2005, at 6:43 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>> However, I'd rather not make a big point of the license in this
>> release.
>> We did that with the last release (which paid dividends) but I think
>> everyone knows about it now.
>>
>
> Huh? That's a weird argument. Even if true, it's no reason not to
> include it in a press release.
>
> - --
> Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
> PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200509300941
> https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?
> pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkM9QKMACgkQvJuQZxSWSshqmACgoJeBd4zluY+BsT8cZz3+jP0V
> SD0AoISByzYgE29T4z6OB5qGmINt90oL
> =x5Z3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
