From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 23:51:20 |
Message-ID: | 200702272351.l1RNpKC21815@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.)
I think the issue is _explicit_ vs _implicit_. I think the email
signature was too explicit.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-02-27 23:52:38 | Re: No ~ operator for box, point |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-02-27 23:48:13 | Re: [HACKERS] |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-02-28 00:20:07 | Re: [HACKERS] |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-02-27 23:48:13 | Re: [HACKERS] |