Prev: [HACKERS] New buildfarm client release
Next: [HACKERS] Documentation Bug/Misnomer?
From: Simon Riggs on 18 May 2010 01:57

I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are
marked as "BSD licence" but then the project files don't contain any
mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly
marked Copyright of people or organizations.

For example, pg_batch is clearly marked "BSD licence", yet the docs and
many of the files are marked "Copyright (c) 2010, NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND
TELEPHONE CORPORATION".

pg_lesslog does contain a BSD-looking licence in the COPYRIGHT file, but
is also marked with copyrights.

My understanding is that we had a policy of copyright novation to the
PGDG. Is that not followed up for pgfoundry projects? I think we should
move to a policy of explicit licencing.

In the absence of a licence file, when a project is marked "BSD licence"
on pgfoundry I think it is safe to presume that the licence for those
files is the same as PostgreSQL's licence.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] New buildfarm client release
Next: [HACKERS] Documentation Bug/Misnomer?