2010/2/2 Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.rom...@notorand.it> > 2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombr...@gmail.com>: > > 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <dev...@gunduz.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.ca...@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
