PostgreSQL licence
Please have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PostgreSQL#License.3F
This guy is insisting that PostgreSQL is NOT released under the BSD licence,
a directly contradiction of the PostgreSQL page on licensing:
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence
(At this point, I've noticed that the URL uses our UK spelling of "licence"
but the page itself contains the US English version "license")
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page needs
updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is he just
plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL says "similar
to the MIT License".
Thanks
Thom
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
says "similar to the MIT License".
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
says "similar to the MIT License".http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some
licence clarification should coincide with v9?
Thom
2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>:
2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
says "similar to the MIT License".http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some
licence clarification should coincide with v9?Thom
Updating the license page?
Isn't the license page the official license statement?
If so, any other Postgres lilcensing reference should point to it.
I "update" the license page when I actually change the license policy.
Which seems not to be the case.
--
Vincenzo Romano
NotOrAnd Information Technologies
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS
2010/2/2 Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.romano@notorand.it>
2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>:
2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
says "similar to the MIT License".http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some
licence clarification should coincide with v9?Thom
Updating the license page?
Isn't the license page the official license statement?
If so, any other Postgres lilcensing reference should point to it.
I "update" the license page when I actually change the license policy.
Which seems not to be the case.
I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar, but
people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the official
site says another.
Thom
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:30:47PM +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar, but
people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the official
site says another.
Then it seems prudent to add clarification (as to the
ambiguity) to *that* page (namely Wikipedia).
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
Could someone clarify, is this guy indeed correct and the licence page
needs updating stating it's something similar to an MIT licence, or is
he just plain wrong? As it stands, the Wikipedia page on PostgreSQL
says "similar to the MIT License".
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
Yeah. The short form of this is that there is not very much difference
between MIT-style and "simplified" (2-clause) BSD-style. Red Hat
(specifically Fedora) decided to lump all such licenses as "MIT-style"
rather than using the phrase "simplified BSD". That's not binding on
anybody else, it's just how they choose to classify licenses.
There is a significant difference between 2-, 3-, and 4-clause BSD
licenses, as the extra clauses ("no-endorsement" and "advertising"
respectively) do make a difference in practice. But Postgres has
never had either of those.
regards, tom lane
Thom Brown wrote:
I guess it's not a major point considering BSD and MIT are so similar,
but people may become confused when Wikipedia says one thing, and the
official site says another.
That's on them. Wikipedia is not, in general, to be taken as an authoritative
source but as an indicative one. The actual license offered by the actual
copyright holder always trumps. Anyone who disbelieves the official site in
favor of Wikipedia has a fool as a researcher and a bigger one as a client.
--
Lew