On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: > >> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are > >> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate > >> way forward. > > > Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here? > > None really: the Postgres license is what it is. This discussion is > just about what is the simplest description of it. Red Hat has decided > that it fits in their "MIT" pigeonhole better than it fits in their > "BSD" pigeonhole. If you compare the OSI definitions of these licenses: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php > our wording is not a terribly exact match to either, but RH's lawyers > think it's closer to MIT.
Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers are pretty much on our side, I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or 2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion. Thanks! :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers