On 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote: > Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > first comment : > > > > * a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ? > > Doesn't really change anything. > > > second comment : > > > > * I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public > > License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and > > software like PostgreSQL. For example : > > Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.
I love that type of respond ;-) Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because is like that..." I have also read that : http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue. Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ? Thanks a lot for the excellent software. alx > > -Doug > -- Alexandre Dulaunoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.conostix.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
