On 2015-08-13 09:32:02 -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 8/12/15 9:32 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >>Certainly don't mind at all, entirely open source under the MIT > >>license. > > > >Why not the PG license? It would be nicer if we didn't have to worry > >about license contamination here.
I don't think MIT is particularly problematic, it's rather similar to a 3 clause BSD and both are pretty similar to PG's license. > There are actually a few reasons I chose the MIT license: > > 1) It's one of the most permissive licenses around. > 2) I originally had plans to extend backrest to other database systems. > Nearly two years into development I don't think that sounds like a great > idea anymore but it was the original plan. I don't see the difference to/with postgres' license there. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
