On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova >> <jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec> wrote: >>> 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. > > I'm of the opinion that we should continue to say that it's simplified > BSD. It's not our problem that Red Hat has chosen not to use that > terminology (which OSI uses, so it's not like there's no precedent). > Red Hat has an interest in minimizing the number of pigeonholes they > classify things into, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care.
Except it is not the simplified BSD - it's notably different. That's Redhat's argument, and was also the comment that the lawyer I spoke to made. > I quite agree with Jaime that starting to call ourselves MIT rather than > BSD would be a public-relations disaster. You already know I agree with that :-) I'm working on getting the licence through the OSI approval process. When/if that is done, I expect we'll have 'The PostgreSQL License' which we can then describe as being *similar* to the simplified BSD. -- 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
