Re: Re: [HACKERS] Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?

Tim Allen wrote:

> Now one thing that might be sensible is to adopt a policy of only
> accepting patches or cvs checkins that are provided irrevocably under the
> terms of the PostgreSQL licence. But that is a policy for the PostgreSQL
> project to adopt, not a term of the licence for redistribution of the
> PostgreSQL software.

That's exactly right.

Firstly I don't believe there is an issue here. There is an implied
licence for patches.

But if there is any doubt it is the project's responsibility to ensure
that code that is accepted is under the right licence. If that means
patches are submitted with the appropriate licence so be it.

If find it somewhat doubtful also that putting this clause into the
copyright would have the desired effect. The clause effectively says
"Whatever patches you make available - well we have a licence whether
you like it or not". I can't see a court enforcing this. Either the
licence is implied by merely submitting it to the existing project by
common law, or the writer explicitely grants the licence. Trying to grab
the licence from the other party just by name it and claim it, I can't
see it working.