> > Yes, the weird part is that the BSD license is so lax (don't sue us)
> > that it is the addition of the GPL that changes the affect of the
> > license. If you added a BSD license to a GPL'ed piece of code, the
> > effect would be near zero.
>
> Sorry for asking this off-topic question, but I'm not sure I completely
> understand this license issue... How GPL, LGPL, and BSD are conflicting
> and or overlap, so that it causes such problems? AFAIK with the GPL
> one has to ship the source code along with the product every time, but
> under BSD it can be shipped without the source (that's why M$ doesn't attack
> BSD as it does for GPL), and why the PostgreSQL project originally is being
> released under the BSD-like license? Just curious...
Because the code we got from Berkeley was BSD licensed, we can't change
it, and because many of us like the BSD license better because we don't
want to require them to release the source code, we just want them to
use PostgreSQL. And we think they will release the source code
eventually anyway.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026