Re: responses to licensing discussion

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To:
Cc: PostgreSQL GENERAL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: responses to licensing discussion
Date: 2000-07-05 05:11:46
Message-ID: 3962C392.C941F82B@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Philip Warner wrote:
>
> At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
> >Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
> >from the code?
>
> Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
> That's why they're there.

Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you
have no contract with is pretty tenuous.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Bitmead 2000-07-05 05:15:12 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this morepalatable?
Previous Message Philip Warner 2000-07-05 05:10:49 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?