From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Date: | 2002-01-22 08:24:53 |
Message-ID: | 13641.1011687893@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the
> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the
> great licenses in the history of open software.
Agreed entirely.
> So why are we having to justify it?
We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that
might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question.
FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this
issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry.
Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been
discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion;
now go away" ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-22 08:50:09 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Previous Message | Holger Krug | 2002-01-22 07:30:23 | Re: How does one return rows from plpgsql functions? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-22 08:50:09 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-22 06:49:06 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |