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

Re: [HACKERS]

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(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: 2007-02-28 17:37:09
Message-ID: 200702281737.l1SHb9829689@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of
> > posting a patch:
> > 
> >     <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
> >     to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
> >     Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
> >     patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
> >     some other license that is BSD compatible (eg. public domain), please
> >     note that in your email submission.</li>
> 
> 
> We should add this to the mailing list signup pages and the welcome
> pages to the lists.

Yep, good idea.  Marc?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >>> Neil Conway wrote:
> >>>> For the case in question, sure, requiring some clarification from FJ
> >>>> would be reasonable. But more broadly, my point is that I think you're
> >>>> fooling yourself if you think that requiring a disclaimer or explicit
> >>>> transfer of copyright for this *one* particular patch is likely to make
> >>>> any material difference to the overall copyright status of the code
> >>>> base.
> >>> Yes, I do.  If there is an explicit claim, like an email footer or a
> >>> copyright in the code, we do try to nail that down.
> >> AFAICT, the footer in question tries to make it illegal for us even to
> >> have the message in our mail archives.  If I were running the PG lists,
> >> I would install filters that automatically reject mails containing such
> >> notices, with a message like "Your corporate lawyers do not deserve to
> >> have access to the internet.  Go away until you've acquired a clue."
> >>
> >> I fully support Bruce's demand that patches be submitted with no such
> >> idiocy attached.
> >>
> >> 			regards, tom lane
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
> 
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-- 
  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. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Sergey E. KoposovDate: 2007-02-28 17:38:47
Subject: Re: SOC & user quotas
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-02-28 17:36:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-28 17:58:04
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-02-28 17:36:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

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