Richard, * Richard Broersma (richard.broersma@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Johnston <polobo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Where the PostgreSQL license comes into play is if you make alterations to > > the PostgreSQL database itself - the underlying engine implemented in C and > > to some degree the supporting utilities written in various languages. > > Anything contributed to the core PostgreSQL project becomes open-source but > > you are permitted to create a commercial port of PostgreSQL with > > proprietary > > code under terms different from those for the core PostgreSQL project. As > > your application is most likely NOT one of these ports I'll stop here. > > > > That my be true for MySQL, but I don't think the applies to PostgreSQL. > Several companies have forked PostgreSQL into their own proprietary product. You made the same mistake I did in reading this. The statement that David made is correct, but you have to read it carefully; here it is with emphasis: "Anything *contributed* to the core PostgreSQL project becomes open-source but..." In other words, if you send us a patch and we like it and add it to PG, it becomes part of PG which is released under the BSD license. Were something submitted under some other license, it'd be hard to call it a contribution to PG and it'd be pretty unlikely to get committed anyway. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
