Hi Haim,
Is the PostgreSQL license (http://www.postgresql.org/licence.html) LGPL
compatible? I have adapted some code (for jdate manipulation) into the
OLE DB project (LGPL). I have copied over the copyright notice, but now
I'm thinking that this may not be enough.
On the front page of the site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new requirement encapsulates the original requirement, and your
> license is therefor not violated. I have, in fact, relicensed your work.
no, the license is only for the *combined* work (which
> IIRC BSD stands for "Berkeley Standard Distribution", and as PostgreSQL
> was originally released as free software from Berkeley under this
> license it would be weird indeed to call it anything else.
FWIW, 'Berkeley Software Distribution'.
---(end of broadcast)
Shachar Shemesh kirjutas R, 23.04.2004 kell 07:53:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
> >>would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
> >>distribute it along with t
Shachar Shemesh kirjutas N, 22.04.2004 kell 19:49:
> The BSD license, in contrast to PostgreSQL's, does NOT require me to
> copy license related texts around, only the copyrights themselves. It
> does pose certain restrictions on what I am allowed to do with the
> copyrights, but any modern fre
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >You can take some Postgres pieces and use them in a project with a
> >different overall license, but those pieces are still under BSD license.
> >
> >
> But that's not the BSD license.
[...]
> The BSD license, in contrast to Postgr
Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.
You can't relicense code you don't own
Sur
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, can you license code at all if it isn't yours? I would assume you
> would have to make changes and license the changes you made, and
> distribute it along with the postgresql-licensed code.
You can't relicense code you don't own (if Shachar thinks dif
> I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at
> the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like
> license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license
> by now.
>
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://w
Tom Lane wrote:
No, that says that you can't remove the copyright notice from files that
have it. It doesn't say that nearby files have to have the same
license. (Compare to the GPL, which *does* say that.)
The bottom line here is that you cannot relicense code you didn't write;
this is generall
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
> something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what
> is the requirement?
You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or
the binary, depending on what you ship. A st
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what
is the requirement?
You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or
the binary, dependi
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
> >>related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
> >>BSD means.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
> >>license. The problem is that there are two.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
> related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
> BSD means.
What license text do you think implies this?
-Neil
---(end of
Neil Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:19, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
The license given in the web link you mention seems to mandate all
related work to be under the same license, which is nowhere near what
BSD means.
What license text do you think implies this?
-Neil
provided that
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> What license text do you think implies this?
> provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the
> following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
> I read that to mean that all copies must have the same license
Tom Lane wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
license. The problem is that there are two.
We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the
source tree, which is also available for you
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
> license. The problem is that there are two.
We use the one shown in the COPYRIGHT file in the top directory of the
source tree, which is also available for your reading pleasure b
Hi all,
Who can give an authorative answer regarding distributing PostgreSQL
under a different license?
In particular, the front page claims that PostgreSQL is under the BSD
license. The problem is that there are two. The four clause license,
which is not GPL compatible, and the three clause,
20 matches
Mail list logo
