Re: Berkeley DB license terms (was Re: Proposal...)

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Woah here ... didn't Michael state that binary-only was okay, as long as
>> the source *was* available on the 'Net? ie. Enhydra can distribute their
>> binaries, as long as sources were still available on postgresql.org?

> But that limits companies from distributing binary-only versions where
> they don't want to give out the source.

The way I read it was that as long as *we* are making Postgres source
available, people using Postgres as a component wouldn't have to, nor
make their own source available which'd probably be the real issue.

OTOH, there'd still be a problem with distributing slightly-modified
versions of Postgres --- that might require a Sleepycat license.

On the whole this seems like a can of worms better left unopened.
We don't want to create questions about whether Postgres is free
or not.

regards, tom lane