| From: | Ned Wolpert <ned(dot)wolpert(at)knowledgenet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Date: | 2002-01-21 20:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1011646012.3517.23.camel@osti.knowledgenet.corp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 09:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> As a PostgreSQL developer, I don't agree with the statement you made for
> another reason: It implies that there is something better about the GPL
> and we have to justify ourselves for not using it. We don't. We give
> away the code we write with no strings attached, and anyone who wants to
> question that has to come up with better arguments than I've heard so far.
I agree with Peter here. There is no need to justify the license schema
with PostgreSQL. However, I think people need to be clear (via FAQ,
Readme, anything with a URL that we can point to people) so that when
this question comes up, we simply direct them there and say, basically,
"its a non-discusionable"
--
Virtually,
Ned Wolpert <ned(dot)wolpert(at)knowledgenet(dot)com>
D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mitch Vincent | 2002-01-21 20:47:04 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-01-21 20:43:44 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mitch Vincent | 2002-01-21 20:47:04 | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-01-21 20:43:44 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |