Re: [HACKERS]

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Well the problem is, it isn't the guy that sent the patch that is the
> idiot. That guys has zero control over the matter, the signature is
> going to be tacked on at the MTA level.

Sure, I know that and you know that. The problem we have to worry about
is that some PHB might later decide to sue us based on our having
ignored the pasted-on disclaimer. Now either the disclaimer means
something, in which case we had better cover our own butts by not
putting a restricted communication into our archives; or else it means
nothing, in which case the submitter can perfectly well resubmit it
without. But the present situation in which we accept and repost
messages containing these sorts of restrictions is the worst of all
possible worlds, because *we* can get sued if anyone is unhappy. Now
that is exactly the result desired by your standard corporate lawyer;
he's been trained to shift blame off his company onto any available
target. But I say it's not necessary, wise, nor moral for us to accept
such liability.

As to the original point, though: if the guy who sent the patch cannot
control the legalistic notices appended to his email, we must surely
not suppose that he has legal ownership of his work product. We need
a certification from his corporate lawyers that they won't sue us for
accepting the patch. If they don't feel the need for such formalities,
they should signal the world by not appending dam-fool notices to every
outgoing email.

regards, tom lane