On 08/20/2009 06:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcall...@redhat.com> writes: >> I've fixed Postgresql's tag in CVS, there should be no need to push >> updates for it simply to fix this tag, but any future updates should >> retain the fixed license tag. > > I have a problem with you summarily doing this. The upstream does not > think the license is MIT, and this is going to cause an enormous amount > of confusion and possibly a PR disaster.
The upstream can think whatever they want to, it is not the BSD license. This is the BSD license, as defined by the OSI, the Regents of the University of California, and Fedora: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php That is NOT the license used by PostgreSQL. The intent of the license used by PostgreSQL is similar, but it is not identical. Notably, the BSD license says that the name of the copyright holders/contributors may not be used to "endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific prior written permission". That clause is absent from the PostgreSQL license. If the PostgreSQL upstream wants to relicense to the BSD license, that is something they can do, but we're not going to pretend it is BSD for the sake of PR, any more than we would pretend it is the "magic flying pony license" if they asked us to. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
