On Sunday 21 March 2010 21.11:56 Lew wrote:
> In at least some jurisdictions, if one party to a contract writes the
> language without input or emendation from the other party, that allows
> the other party to impose any reasonable interpretation on the wording.
> IOW, ambiguity is resolved in fa
Steve Crawford wrote:
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" :
I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however
the line which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I
think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL
develope
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" :
I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line which says "without
fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL
developers" rather than "if yo
In response to "Jonathan Tripathy" :
>
> I know the PostgreSQL licence is "based" on the BSD licence, however the line
> which says "without fee" rings alarm bells, even though I think it means that
> "you don't have ot pay anything to the PostgreSQL developers" rather than "if
> you distribute
On 10 March 2010 14:49, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Can someone please confirm that the PostgreSQL licence allow commercial
> distribution (with a fee charged)?
>
> I am developing a proprietary (i.e. non-free) solution in Java, and wish to
> use PostgreSQL as the backend databas
Hi Everyone,
Can someone please confirm that the PostgreSQL licence allow commercial
distribution (with a fee charged)?
I am developing a proprietary (i.e. non-free) solution in Java, and wish to use
PostgreSQL as the backend database. We wish to ship the server with our
software, as well as u
