Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS]

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, John Bartlett <johnb(at)fast(dot)fujitsu(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Date: 2007-02-27 23:48:13
Message-ID: 1172620093.4420.4.camel@neilc-laptop (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Gonna have to concur with that. Not that the sig is legally binding
> anyway, we do need to have a disclaimer in the email stating that you
> are assigning to PGDG

I think it's pretty silly to start caring about this now. Do you think
that in the absence of any signature/disclaimer attached to a patch,
then the copyright for the change is "implicitly" assigned to PGDG? (I'm
not a lawyer, but I believe that's not the case.)

-Neil



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-02-27 23:51:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2007-02-27 23:14:18
Subject: Synchronized Scan update

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-02-27 23:51:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Previous:From: Matteo BeccatiDate: 2007-02-27 23:31:05
Subject: Re: Small patch to compile on IRIX 6.5 with gcc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group