| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | 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 11:07:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911171205190.29920-100000@Lodjur.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-11-17 11:11:39 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: Unique indexes on system tables |
| Previous Message | Ricardo Coelho | 1999-11-17 10:08:51 | select MIN/MAX when no row selected |