| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 23:48:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1172620093.4420.4.camel@neilc-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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.)
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-27 23:51:20 | Re: [HACKERS] |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-02-27 23:14:18 | Synchronized Scan update |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-27 23:51:20 | Re: [HACKERS] |
| Previous Message | Matteo Beccati | 2007-02-27 23:31:05 | Re: Small patch to compile on IRIX 6.5 with gcc |