On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > > > >
> > > > > One work, I assume.
> > > >
> > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in
> > > > every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only
> > > > have to be one notice.
> > >
> > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
> > > projects.
> > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
> So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me.
Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a
year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us. (Though
for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a
copyright notice at all).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-01-02 04:03:06|
|Subject: Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-01-02 03:53:54|
|Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22|