On 05/18/2010 07:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: >> That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit >> pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to >> trust PgFoundry. >> >> > > pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The projects there are > the responsibility of their individual owners. We are not going to start > being the license police. I at least have neither the time to do that > nor any interest in doing it. If people want to use what is on pgFoundry > then it is up to them to make sure it has whatever licence meets their > requirements.
I agree there - pgfoundry is just the resource provider, we are not a licence police (and given that none of the pgf admins is an actual lawyer there is no sense in even trying). People wanting to get some sort of "indemnification" or whatever need to look into commercial providers (or use distribution provided packages for stuff because those are usually very well checked for licence stuff in all major linux distributions). > > What we should do is add the PostgreSQL license to the list of available > licenses and make sure it is the default for new projects. I can look into that... Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
