Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
