Legacy approval request - The PostgreSQL Licence

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:43:31 +0000
Dave Page <dpage at postgresql.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway
> <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > For what it is worth, I'd like to reiterate that this is
> > functionally identical to MIT (X11), except that it is slightly
> > less permissive (does not permit sublicensing).
> >
> > My only concern with approving this as a distinct license separate
> > from MIT is that Fedora is tracking 26 other variants which are all
> > functionally identical to the MIT license as approved by OSI, but
> > have slightly different wording. If each of these licenses is
> > approved and labeled separately, we will be encouraging rather
> > significant license proliferation.
> 
> As you point out, the licence is less permissive, so surely calling it
> MIT when it is not does your users a disservice as they may end up
> inadvertently putting themselves in a position where they are in
> non-compliance?

Are you confirming then that the license of PostgreSQL doesn't permit
sublicensing, even (somehow) by implication? I might conclude from that
that the license is GPL-incompatible, which is an issue that Tom tracks
for licenses that are approved for distribution by Fedora. (Not that
that has anything to do with OSI approval.) 

- RF