Re: [HACKERS]

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
base.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-28 03:03:58 Re: [HACKERS]
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-02-28 00:20:07 Re: [HACKERS]