Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ
Date: 2007-03-03 17:17:00
Message-ID: 45E9AD8C.4020700@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
>>>> non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
>>> How frequently is this actually a problem?
>> Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
>> legal disclaimer in their signature. Which is why this all came about.
>
> Well, if we want to guard against that, we will have to be explicit
> about it because the old wording didn't address this directly.

The wording you just posted up thread seemed to...

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-03-03 17:17:33 Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-03 17:16:28 Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ