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


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: 2007-02-28 01:51:19
Message-ID: 1172627479.4420.29.camel@neilc-laptop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 16:20 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Thus we may literally not have rights to the code. Do you really want to
> go down the path of in 2 years, Fujitsu (No offense Fujitsu), but you
> are the topic) decides that the code they provided is owned by them and
> they didn't give us permission?

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


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Galy LeeDate: 2007-02-28 01:51:58
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-02-28 01:51:04
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-02-28 03:03:58
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-02-28 00:20:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group