On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Radu-Adrian Popescu wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Doug Quale wrote:
> | Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> |
> |
> |>The FSF characterizes the PostgreSQL license as being "an X11 style
> |>license." They felt a need to distinguish between different
> |>variations of licenses that are called 'BSD licenses.'
> |>
> |>The FSF web site then compares various variations on "BSD licenses,"
> |>considering that there are some that they deem to be "free" (in their
> |>terms), and that there are others that they deem to _NOT_ be "free"
> |>(again in their terms).
> |
> |
> | No, that's not what the FSF says. All the BSD licenses are considered
> | free by the FSF. (Look at the web page yourself.) Most BSD licenses
> | are compatible with the GPL, but the original BSD license contains a
> | problematic advertising clause that makes it incompatible with the
> | GPL.
> |
> | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
> | compatible.
>
> Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
> a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?
>
> Not that I would, just curious. And even if I did, it would be a severly
> castrated postgresql, as the history of the "My" particle suggests :))
> ~ - sorry I couldn't resist.
No, it means you can distribute the two together like on a redhat CD
without worrying about conflicting licenses.