Re: Berkeley DB license terms (was Re: Proposal...)

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Woah here ... didn't Michael state that binary-only was okay, as long as
> >> the source *was* available on the 'Net? ie. Enhydra can distribute their
> >> binaries, as long as sources were still available on postgresql.org?
>
> > But that limits companies from distributing binary-only versions where
> > they don't want to give out the source.
>
> The way I read it was that as long as *we* are making Postgres source
> available, people using Postgres as a component wouldn't have to, nor
> make their own source available which'd probably be the real issue.
>
> OTOH, there'd still be a problem with distributing slightly-modified
> versions of Postgres --- that might require a Sleepycat license.
>
> On the whole this seems like a can of worms better left unopened.
> We don't want to create questions about whether Postgres is free
> or not.

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026