On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:33 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > >> No - pgFoundry projects are licenced and copyright-attributed as their > >> authors see fit (as long as it's an open source licence of course). > > > > Yes, are they open source licences? > > All the options on pgFoundry are, yes. > > >> The PostgreSQL Licence is not the same as any of the BSD variants, so > >> that is not a safe presumption to make. > > > > If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open > > source licence must also be unclear. > > Not at all. If it's listed on www.opensource.org, then a licence is > "open source". Why do you think I busted a gut to get the PostgreSQL > licence approved when we realised it wasn't BSD?
Dave, this is important and so this thread must have a clear resolution, so we must stick to a single point and be clear about our logic and our statements. You're saying these two things, I think, or if you or anybody else disagrees, please so clearly. * When project realised that the PostgreSQL licence wasn't actually a BSD licence, that PostgreSQL was clarified to be the TPL, yet pgfoundry was not covered by that clarification for some reason. * In the absence of any licence text in any of the files of a project on a certain date, then if the project is advertised on PgFoundry on that date as having a "BSD licence" then the software will be covered by http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
