From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, John Bartlett <johnb(at)fast(dot)fujitsu(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] |
Date: | 2007-02-28 01:51:19 |
Message-ID: | 1172627479.4420.29.camel@neilc-laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 16:20 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Thus we may literally not have rights to the code. Do you really want to
> go down the path of in 2 years, Fujitsu (No offense Fujitsu), but you
> are the topic) decides that the code they provided is owned by them and
> they didn't give us permission?
For the case in question, sure, requiring some clarification from FJ
would be reasonable. But more broadly, my point is that I think you're
fooling yourself if you think that requiring a disclaimer or explicit
transfer of copyright for this *one* particular patch is likely to make
any material difference to the overall copyright status of the code
base.
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Galy Lee | 2007-02-28 01:51:58 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-28 01:51:04 | Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-28 03:03:58 | Re: [HACKERS] |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-02-28 00:20:07 | Re: [HACKERS] |