Re: Patch license update to developer's FAQ

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> 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...
>
> The issue is that people with those signatures don't think they are
> submitting under a non-BSD license. I thought you were saying we need
> to address that directly.

Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
made the point of the BSD license, and when they were welcomed (the
first email they get from the list software) it told them again.

Sincerely,

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/