On 8/13/15 9:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-08-13 09:32:02 -0400, David Steele wrote:
On 8/12/15 9:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
Certainly don't mind at all, entirely open source under the MIT
license.
Why not the PG license? It would be nicer if we didn't have to worry
about license contamination here.
I don't think MIT is particularly problematic, it's rather similar to a
3 clause BSD and both are pretty similar to PG's license.
There are actually a few reasons I chose the MIT license:
1) It's one of the most permissive licenses around.
2) I originally had plans to extend backrest to other database systems.
Nearly two years into development I don't think that sounds like a great
idea anymore but it was the original plan.
I don't see the difference to/with postgres' license there.
Perhaps just me but it was really about perception. If I extended
BackRest to work with MySQL (shudders) then I thought it would be weird
if it used the PostgreSQL license.
Anyway, now BackRest is now pretty solidly pgBackRest and I don't have
any immediate plans to port to other database systems so the point is
probably moot.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
