Re: [HACKERS]

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 23:51:20
Message-ID: 200702272351.l1RNpKC21815@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.)

I think the issue is _explicit_ vs _implicit_. I think the email
signature was too explicit.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-02-27 23:52:38 Re: No ~ operator for box, point
Previous Message Neil Conway 2007-02-27 23:48:13 Re: [HACKERS]

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-02-28 00:20:07 Re: [HACKERS]
Previous Message Neil Conway 2007-02-27 23:48:13 Re: [HACKERS]