2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@xxxxxxxxxx>
I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some licence clarification should coincide with v9?
Thom
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:09 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1256509037.7432.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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".
I take it you're staying the licence page needs updating? Maybe some licence clarification should coincide with v9?
Thom
