| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Brian Waters <jbw(at)InnovaSystems(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Postgresql Docs.... |
| Date: | 1999-11-17 15:07:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3832C4A9.BEDCD413@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> How about "free software" or "freely available"? As in "free to do
> whatever you want", not Free(tm) as in FSF. IMHO, "open source" sounds to
> buzzword-compliant these days.
How about simply "BSD licensed?"
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-17 15:52:40 | Re: [HACKERS] regression tests |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-11-17 13:33:37 | Re: [HACKERS] regression tests |