On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 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 both licenses are "roughly equivalent", because users
>>> are afraid of any changes. if we simply change our license for no good
>>> reason we will have a ton of questions about if PostgreSQL is being
>>> sold just as MySQL was...
>>
>> Changing the licence is *not* going to happen.
>>
>
> 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 our heads in the sand is not an option.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start