| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL-related legal question |
| Date: | 2015-03-11 23:53:46 |
| Message-ID: | 14418.1426118026@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One of my sons was hired by Google last year after spending the past
> several years working on various open-source projects, it took 2 days of
> back-and-forth with Google's legal department before he was satisfied with
> the restrictions in their offer.
FWIW, I had a pretty similar discussion with Salesforce when I joined
them.
If you're looking at an employment agreement with verbiage like this,
get them to modify it. They're probably hiring you in part *because*
you are a contributor to PG, so they should be willing to bend their
standard language for you. If not, maybe you don't want that job.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Uckun | 2015-03-12 03:57:20 | Re: Benchmarking partitioning triggers and rules |
| Previous Message | Brent Tubbs | 2015-03-11 21:58:11 | Re: Postgres and data warehouses |