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

Re: Copyright update

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Copyright update
Date: 2009-01-02 04:00:22
Message-ID: 200901012300.23122.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > > > >
> > > > > One work, I assume.
> > > >
> > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in
> > > > every source file?  ISTM that if it were one work there would only
> > > > have to be one notice.
> > >
> > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
> > > projects.
> >
> > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
>
> So I can get three different answers?  It is not a priority for me.
>

Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a 
year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us.  (Though 
for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a 
copyright notice at all). 

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-01-02 04:03:06
Subject: Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-01-02 03:53:54
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22

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