Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs....

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>>>>>> I notice that the postgresql docs say that postgresql is a public domain
>>>>>> program, while they really carry a Berkley copyright. You might want to
>>>>>> correct this for the next release.

>>>> So what about this would not be considered public domain software?

>> Something can not be both Copyrighted and in the public domain.

> Hmm. I've taken this on-list, just in case someone else has a comment.
> But in the absence of alternate information, I'll just assume that we
> are not public domain software. But I sure still have the feeling that
> we are getting gypped by the legaleze.

IANAL, but I've paid considerable attention to these issues over the
past ten years. My understanding is that "public domain" means
specifically that there is *no* copyright or any other intellectual-
property restriction on the software. In particular, anything that
has either a BSD- or GPL-style license is most certainly not public
domain.

I'd suggest replacing all uses of the phrase "public domain" with
"open source" or "freely available" or some other term that hasn't
got such a clearly-inapplicable legal meaning.

regards, tom lane