On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters. > > If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?
Because they categorise licences to help their users. It's just a label. > ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then > refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation > that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the > licence because of it being widely misdescribed. Already in hand. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
