| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joost Kraaijeveld <JKraaijeveld(at)askesis(dot)nl>, daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Missing headers Windows NT port |
| Date: | 1998-09-14 01:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 35FC7793.4481214A@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Actually, I don't think we could if we even wanted to...the BSD
> license itself states that its freely distributable as long as the
> copyright stays in tact...so, if we were to put GPL code into it,
> would we be breaking the BSD copyright :)
I don't mean to start the license thing again, and it's OK to ignore
this, but...
The copyright from UCB seems to allow unlimited use, modification, and
distribution, and asks that the copyright notice be included with the
code. afaik the main purpose of the copyright notice is to ensure that
UCB has some credit for the work they and their sponsors have done, and
to ensure that there is a liability disclaimer for same. Would the
inclusion of a GPL addendum or GPL code be at odds with that, as long as
the UCB license continues to be included and prominently displayed? I
have a hard time seeing how, but since lawyers are in a different world
than I maybe it's beyond me :)
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-09-14 02:17:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Compiling 6.4 on NetBSD-current/pc532 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-09-14 01:51:12 | Re: [HACKERS] AbortTransaction and not in in-progress state |