Re: PostgreSQL licence

2010/2/2 Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it>

> 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.
>
>
>
I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar, but
people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the official
site says another.

Thom