On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:48:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> 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 really: the Postgres license is what it is. This discussion is
> just about what is the simplest description of it. Red Hat has decided
> that it fits in their "MIT" pigeonhole better than it fits in their
> "BSD" pigeonhole. If you compare the OSI definitions of these licenses:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> our wording is not a terribly exact match to either, but RH's lawyers
> think it's closer to MIT.
Not being any kind of attorney, and assuming the Red Hat lawyers
are pretty much on our side, I'll just say we're more MIT-like, or
2-clause BSD if the former causes confusion. Thanks! :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate