| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Copyright |
| Date: | 2000-01-28 22:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | 12581.949099222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> ... I believe he used PostgreSQL Inc.
> because it is a legal entity, vs. the development team, which is not.
Right. Although IANAL, I'm pretty sure it's pointless to slap a
copyright notice on something unless the copyright names an actual
legal entity (one which could go sue an infringer, if necessary).
The development team is not a person, corporation, or partnership,
so in the eyes of the law it doesn't exist.
I seem to recall some discussion of creating a separate legal entity
to hold the copyright, but offhand I don't see what it buys us
except more paperwork. The same people (ie, the core developers)
would have the final say over what either that entity or PostgreSQL,
Inc does, so what's the difference?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-01-28 23:07:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Copyright |
| Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-01-28 22:21:15 | Old Postgres papers (was Re: [HACKERS] OO and tuples of different types) |