Re: The definition of PGDG

On Thursday 08 November 2007 10:38, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
> actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
> a stab at it?
>
> IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
> the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
> or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
> be what we actually have anyway.
>
> Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.

AFAICT we have the former (code is owned by respective owners). AIUI, in most
European countries copyright is considered naturally given rights that you
have and that you cannot give away. In the U.S., you can give copy rights
away, however you can only do so to a defined legal entity, of which the PGDG
is not one. This can change somewhat depending on country and depending upon
employer agreements, but since no one is employed by the PGDG, it's mostly
moot from what I can tell.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL