Re: Does this match one of our standard licenses?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

I put this in ../A, and then did:

for i in `ls /usr/pkgsrc/licenses`; do wdiff -3 /usr/pkgsrc/licenses/$i ../A > 
$i; done

and then ls -lS, which showed postgresql-license to be closest, and the
diff follows.   The wording is slightly different, but 'any new file
that contains substantial portion of this file' is ordinarily viewed
as a copy (or derivative work).  So this just barely meets my comfort
level for not objecting to you calling it the same.

Further, it seems odd that postgresql-license has a -license suffix,
since it's obviously intended to be a free license and is OSI approved:
  http://opensource.org/licenses/PostgreSQL


Here's the wdiff output from postgresl-license to what you posted:




======================================================================
[-The PostgreSQL Licence (TPL)

Copyright (c) <year>, <organization>-]
======================================================================
 [-copies.-]
{+copies or in any new file that contains a substantial portion of this
file.+}
======================================================================
 [-<organization>-] {+THE AUTHOR+}
======================================================================
 [-<organization>-] {+THE AUTHOR+}
======================================================================


[-<organization>-]

{+THE AUTHOR+}
======================================================================
 [-<organization>-] {+THE AUTHOR+}
======================================================================

Attachment: pgpfyVuuNGnee.pgp
Description: PGP signature