On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then >>>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. >>>> >>> >>> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to >>> think in change our license i think... >>> even in the case both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users >>> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good >>> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being >>> sold just as MySQL was... >> >> Changing the licence is *not* going to happen. >> > > to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but > as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even > if the wording doesn't change...
So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
