Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL
От | Lincoln Yeoh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3.0.5.32.20020122175520.00d8f5b0@192.228.128.13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Licence: GNU/GPL (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I think it's necessary, just looking at my mailbox :). Anyone who wants a GPL version of Postgresql can fork off. Cheerio, Link. At 03:24 AM 22-01-2002 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> writes: >> I've always considered it a point of recognition that we retain the >> licensing that Berkeley was kind enough to give us. It *is* one of the >> great licenses in the history of open software. > >Agreed entirely. > >> So why are we having to justify it? > >We're not "justifying" it; we're trying to compose a FAQ entry that >might stave off a few askings of this all-too-frequently-asked question. >FAQs exist to save people time, not to "justify" things. And this >issue certainly has come up often enough to merit a FAQ entry. > >Basically, I think we want a reasonably polite version of "it's been >discussed, it's been agreed to, it's not open to further discussion; >now go away" ... > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: