From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Copyright |
Date: | 2000-01-29 20:11:02 |
Message-ID: | 38934956.73530456@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > This depends on the definition of open source; I think Netscape is
> > OpenSource these days, but I doubt if anyone would be allowed to take the
> > sources and create "Petscape: The Dog's Browser". But, as far as I know, I
> > could go away tomorrow with the PostgreSQL sources and create "Mostgress",
> > so long as I did not try to sell it. AFAIK, I might even get away with
> > selling it, but it's not really the point.
>
> Yes you could. The original Postgres developers (or at least some of
> them) did just that in founding Illustra. They sold the company a
> couple of years later for $50M US to Informix.
Actually Postgres was _not_ distributed under the BSD (do-whatever-you-want
but
give credit) license but a much more restrictive license that required a
special
permission from UBC to to anything non-educational.
IIRC Stonebraker et al founded Illustra after getting special permissions from
UCB
The shift to BSD license (that enabled the current blooming of PostgreSQL ;)
was oftained sometime during the development of postgres 95, with some
considerable backing from Stonebraker.
>
-------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-29 20:40:35 | ImmediateSharedRelationCacheInvalidate considered harmful |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-29 19:53:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Sure enough, SI buffer overrun is broken |