Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Good analysis. What is wrong with using a BSD license for graphics? No
> one has explained that.
Actually this all started with the confusion per Koen and is documented
at the beginning of the thread.
As far as Peter's point we could easily just remove that one clause.
Alternatively do it the way SQL Lite has done it... public domain.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2006 18:29 schrieb Joshua D. Drake:
>>> Well, in the spirit of the BSD I would say:
>>>
>>> Attribution (by)
>>>
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>> Well, the main problem with that license is that it prohibits you from copying
>> the works over encrypted links or storing the works on encrypted media or a
>> computer protected by a password.
>>
>> "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
>> digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control
>> access"
>>
>> The more general problem is that it is excessively complicated and ambiguously
>> worded and doesn't achieve anything beyond what the BSD license does.
>>
>> If the BSD license is too complicated still, I can offer the following
>> alternative license: "You may use, modify and redistribute this software as
>> you wish."
>>
>> --
>> Peter Eisentraut
>> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/