Re: possible license violations

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "tom(dot)beacon" <tom(dot)beacon(at)protonmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: possible license violations
Date: 2021-06-03 23:00:08
Message-ID: 20210603230008.GB6775@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 06:08:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 09:31:15PM +0000, tom.beacon wrote:
> >> What is the best contact with whom to discuss possible violations of the pgsql
> >> license?
>
> > Uh, good question, and I could not find the answer easily. I would
> > report it to the owners of the Postgres trademark:
>
> > https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/trademarks/
> > board(at)lists(dot)postgres(dot)ca
>
> A point worth making here is that the Postgres *license* is so lax
> that it's basically impossible to violate, unless maybe by redistributing
> the code sans COPYRIGHT file. And even if somebody were doing that,
> I doubt how much we'd care.

I have received private reports of our COPYRIGHT not being properly
included in distributions so I am sensitive to those possible
violations, and I assume the trademark holders would deal with those as
well.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tiffany Thang 2021-06-04 01:10:04 Re: Dropping dependent tables
Previous Message Bryn Llewellyn 2021-06-03 22:35:29 inner subprograms ... Was: syntax question