On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
OK. I thought you were talking about copyright and licences though. > 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. No. The licences never changed on anything - all we did was get it approved by the OSI, and clarify our *naming* of the licence in PostgreSQL (and pgAdmin). It's entirely up to the maintainers of each project on pgFoundry to decide whether the licence text or the licence name is what they intend, and to carify accordingly for their projects. > * 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 Yes, I believe that is a fair and safe assumption. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
