From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Copyright update |
Date: | 2009-01-02 04:00:22 |
Message-ID: | 200901012300.23122.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > > > >
> > > > > One work, I assume.
> > > >
> > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in
> > > > every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only
> > > > have to be one notice.
> > >
> > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
> > > projects.
> >
> > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes?
>
> So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me.
>
Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a
year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us. (Though
for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a
copyright notice at all).
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-02 04:03:06 | Re: Proposed Patch to Improve Performance of Multi-BatchHash Join for Skewed Data Sets |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-01-02 03:53:54 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |