On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Radu-Adrian Popescu wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Doug Quale wrote: > | Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > | > |>The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style > |>license." They felt a need to distinguish between different > |>variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.' > |> > |>The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses," > |>considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their > |>terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free" > |>(again in their terms). > | > | > | No, that's not what the FSF says. All the BSD licenses are considered > | free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.) Most BSD licenses > | are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a > | problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the > | GPL. > | > | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL > | compatible. > > Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get > a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ? > > Not that I would, just curious. And even if I did, it would be a severly > castrated postgresql, as the history of the "My" particle suggests :)) > ~ - sorry I couldn't resist.
No, it means you can distribute the two together like on a redhat CD without worrying about conflicting licenses. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
