Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT
Date
Msg-id 937d27e10910260156x1bfb2b5du6ed59371c23e300@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
2009/10/26 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>:

> Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
> are pretty much on our side,

They're not really. They're just interested in doing things the right
way for Redhat users (which is fine - that's what they're paid for).

> I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or
> 2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion.  Thanks! :)

I've also spoken to a lawyer about this, and he concurred that our
licence is more MIT-like in the way that its worded. It has roughly
the same requirements as the simplified BSD though - but then so do a
bunch of other OSI approved licences.

As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
based on or looks like.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Tightening binary receive functions
Next
From: Sergey Konoplev
Date:
Subject: 8.4.1 strange GiST (btree_gist?) messages + index row size error (possible BUG, test case + test data)