Re: Licence preamble update

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Licence preamble update
Date: 2025-02-28 04:01:43
Message-ID: 20250228040143.00.nmisch@google.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 04:56:05PM +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> Per some brief discussion on the core list, the attached patch updates the
> licence preamble to more accurately reflect the use of Postgres vs.
> PostgreSQL (see https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/project-name/ for
> background from many years ago).

> --- a/COPYRIGHT
> +++ b/COPYRIGHT
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> PostgreSQL Database Management System
> -(formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)
> +(also known as Postgres, formerly as Postgres95)
>
> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

I'm not seeing this change as aligned with
https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/project-name/, which says Postgres
"is an alias or nickname and is not the official name of the project." The
official product name did change Postgres -> Postgres95 -> PostgreSQL, with
"Postgres" holding the status of a nickname since Postgres95 became the
official name. Today's text matches that history, and the proposed text
doesn't. Can you share more from the brief discussion? Changing a license
file is an eyebrow-raising event, so we should do it only if the win is clear.
There may be an argument for making this change, but I'm missing it currently.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2025-02-28 04:09:13 Re: Reduce TupleHashEntryData struct size by half
Previous Message Sutou Kouhei 2025-02-28 03:57:09 Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations