On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova > <jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then >>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. >>> >> >> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to >> think in change our license i think... >> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users >> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good >> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being >> sold just as MySQL was... > > Changing the licence is *not* going to happen. >
to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even if the wording doesn't change... that's because we have years telling people our license is BSD like and is very liberal, if we change the way we label our license we have to change that and say our license is MIT like and when you do that the question will arise: "what was that change for?" and you will explain that the license hadn't changed but the mind of the users is not listening anymore it's very busy trying to find for themselves hidden reasons and they will find them even if that reasons doesn't exist. -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL AsesorÃa y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers