Robert Treat wrote:
> > > All of the arguments about license changes have been gone over in great
> > > detail in the archives (I think the last major go-round on the topic was
> > > in the summer of 2000). No one who has been around long enough to
> > > remember those flame wars is interested in
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 17:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Also, I am a little confused by Tom's statement that we don't have the right
> > > to modify the license.
> >
> > I don't see what's confusing about it. Our implicit contract
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, I am a little confused by Tom's statement that we don't have the right
> > to modify the license.
>
> I don't see what's confusing about it. Our implicit contract with
> contributors (past and present) is that we'd distribute
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose, WITHOUT FEE, and without a written
> agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice
> and this paragraph and the follow
> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose, WITHOUT FEE, and without a written
> agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice
> and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all
> copies."
My pe
Something very important was recently raised on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list. Due to the current environment that SCO is fostering in the
open source community, it would be prudent for the PostgreSQL team to
consider this issue.
The website claims that "PostgreSQL is distributed under the flexible
