On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:08:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Amonson, Paul D" <paul.d.amon...@intel.com> writes: > > I had our OSS internal team, who are experts in OSS licensing, review > > possible conflicts between the PostgreSQL license and the BSD-Clause 3-like > > license for the CRC32C AVX-512 code, and they found no issues. Therefore, > > including the new license into the PostgreSQL codebase should be acceptable. > > Maybe you should get some actual lawyers to answer this type of > question. The Chromium license this code cites is 3-clause-BSD > style, which is NOT compatible: the "advertising" clause is > significant. > > In any case, writing copyright notices that are pointers to > external web pages is not how it's done around here. We generally > operate on the assumption that the Postgres source code will > outlive any specific web site. Dead links to incidental material > might be okay, but legally relevant stuff not so much.
Agreed. The licenses are compatible in the sense that they can be combined to create a unified work, but they cannot be combined without modifying the license of the combined work. You would need to combine the Postgres and Chrome license for this, and I highly doubt we are going to be modifying the Postgres for this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
