Re: PostgreSQL licence

2010/2/2 Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com>:
> 2010/2/2 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
>>
>> 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@hp-laptop2.gunduz.org
>>
>>
>
> 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