2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
