| From: | Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL licence |
| Date: | 2010-02-02 14:22:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3eff28921002020622q1fc77856occ55d5553f2de1db@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
>> > needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
>> > he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
>> > says "similar to the MIT License".
>>
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
>>
>>
>
> I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some
> licence clarification should coincide with v9?
>
> Thom
Updating the license page?
Isn't the license page the official license statement?
If so, any other Postgres lilcensing reference should point to it.
I "update" the license page when I actually change the license policy.
Which seems not to be the case.
--
Vincenzo Romano
NotOrAnd Information Technologies
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2010-02-02 14:30:47 | Re: PostgreSQL licence |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-02-02 14:12:28 | Re: PostgreSQL licence |