On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
> dp...@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes:
>> As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
>> is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
>> based on or looks like.
>
> There may be a fairly minisc
dp...@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes:
> As Tom says though, the effect this has on users is zero. The licence
> is still the same as its always been, regardless of what we say it is
> based on or looks like.
There may be a fairly miniscule one...
There do exist "GPL zealots" that bash, as "not fr
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>>> if the wordi
Dave Page writes:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>> if the wording doesn't change...
> So what do you suggest? Burying o
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>>>
>>
>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>>
>
> IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyo
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence.
>
IMHO and not being a lawyer, this is the only reason for anyone to
think in change our license i think...
even in the case bot
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:13 +, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> > ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
>> > refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
>> > that might allow someone to claim
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:13 +, Dave Page wrote:
> > ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
> > refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
> > that might allow someone to claim some injunctive relief of part of the
> > licence because
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.
>
> If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?
Because they categorise licences to help their users. It's just a label.
> ISTM we should apply t
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Otherwise I'm not sure it matters.
If that were true, why did Red Hat lawyers do this?
ISTM we should apply to OSI for approval of our licence, so we can then
refer to it as the PostgreSQL licence. That then avoids any situation
that might allo
2009/10/26 David Fetter :
> Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
> are pretty much on our side,
They're not really. They're just interested in doing things the right
way for Redhat users (which is fine - that's what they're paid for).
> I'll just say we're more MIT-li
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
> >> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
> >> way fo
David Fetter writes:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
>> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
>> way forward.
> Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here?
None
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:34:28PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
> already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
> way forward.
Legally speaking, what are the issues at hand here?
Apart from the legal part, what ot
It's not a perfect match to MIT, but it is close. We (-core) are
already actively working on this issue to find the most appropriate
way forward.
On 10/25/09, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
>
> Background info: Fedora/Red Hat folks (not Tom...) changed license in
> PostgreSQL spec file from BSD to MIT with
Background info: Fedora/Red Hat folks (not Tom...) changed license in
PostgreSQL spec file from BSD to MIT with the following notice:
# PG considers their license to be simplified BSD, but it's more nearly
MIT
Our license wording fits perfectly to MIT, if I'm not wrong. However, we
always advert
18 matches
Mail list logo
