Re: responses to licensing discussion

Chris Bitmead wrote:
> 
> Philip Warner wrote:
> 
> > There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
> > flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
> > architectures that support RPM.
> >
> > We could also pop up a message on 'initdb', or the first time the
> > postmaster is started etc etc.
> >
> > We might even want to be really paranoid, and warn each user when they
> > first go into psql...I provide WWW services, and part of that service is
> > access to PG. My agreements always limit my liabilities, but these users
> > never see the BSD waiver of PG...
> 
> Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
> from the code?
> 
> Read the GPL and LGPL - they have thought of these issues. It just shows
> you can't "fix" the BSD licence with a couple of quick-fix add-ons. I
> propose the exclusion clause in COPYRIGHT be widened to include everyone
> in the universe and leave it at that. In reality it's the only change
> that is going to get up.

Yes. It should read (in a nutshell):

Do whatever the hell you want with this software, but use it at
your own risk.

Mike Mascari