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: | 2007-02-28 03:03:58 |
Message-ID: | 200702280303.l1S33w924696@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 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.
Yes, I do. If there is an explicit claim, like an email footer or a
copyright in the code, we do try to nail that down.
--
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. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-02-28 03:43:53 | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-28 02:13:11 | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Bartlett | 2007-02-28 04:14:54 | Re: - WIP Patch Updatable Cursor |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-02-28 01:51:19 | Re: [HACKERS] |