2010/2/2 Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.romano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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
2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown@xxxxxxxxx>:
Updating the license page?> 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
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
