Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Lew
Thom Brown wrote: I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar, but people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the official site says another. That's on them. Wikipedia is not, in general, to be taken as an authoritative source but as an indicative

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= writes: > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: >> Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page >> needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is >> he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Karsten Hilbert
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:30:47PM +, Thom Brown wrote: > I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar, but > people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the official > site says another. Then it seems prudent to add clarification (as to the ambiguit

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Thom Brown
2010/2/2 Vincenzo Romano > 2010/2/2 Thom Brown : > > 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ > >> > >> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: > >> > > >> > Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page > >> > needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence,

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Vincenzo Romano
2010/2/2 Thom Brown : > 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ >> >> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: >> > >> > Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page >> > needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is >> > he just plain wrong?  As it st

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Thom Brown
2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: > > > > Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page > > needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is > > he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on Pos

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL licence

2010-02-02 Thread Devrim GÜNDÜZ
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +, Thom Brown wrote: > > Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page > needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is > he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL > says "similar to the MIT