[Resending; I accidentally failed to copy the list.] Federico Di Gregorio <f...@initd.org> wrote: > the logical choice is plain LGPL3. I am open to motivated > suggestions about other licenses but I'll ignore such crap as "BSD > is more open than LGPL". Well, I don't know about "more open", but I find the PostgreSQL BSD- derived license easier to understand. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FAQ#What_is_the_license_of_PostgreSQL.3F http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt And I suspect that some of these requirements of LGPL might make it unlikely to be considered as something that can be shipped with PostgreSQL. (Yeah, I'm looking at *you*, section 4.) -Kevin > DISCLAIMER. If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing > that: > 1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient". > 2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit > and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke > as it lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or > the WWW. > 3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your > company. > 4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality > that may be included on your message.
Nice! :-) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
