On 18 Apr 2002, Doug McNaught wrote:
> Alexandre Dulaunoy <adulau@conostix.com> writes:
>
> > first comment :
> >
> > * a special directory with ./contrib/gpl ?
>
> Doesn't really change anything.
>
> > second comment :
> >
> > * I don't really understand your position regarding the GNU General Public
> > License. The GPL is offering multiple advantages for a big project and
> > software like PostgreSQL. For example :
>
> Not open for discussion. See the FAQ.
I love that type of respond ;-)
Yes, I have read the faq. The 1.2 is not responding why the modified
Berkeley-style BSD license was choosen. There is only a respond :"because
is like that..."
I have also read that :
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2000-07/msg00210.php
My question is more regarding the recent issue of RF license for some
specific patents. As described in my previous message, "copyleft" type
license has some advantages around the RF licensing issue.
Could you extend the FAQ (1.2) with more arguments ?
Thanks a lot for the excellent software.
alx
>
> -Doug
>
--
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau@conostix.com http://www.conostix.com/