Re: [HACKERS]

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> 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.

> Yes, I do. If there is an explicit claim, like an email footer or a
> copyright in the code, we do try to nail that down.

AFAICT, the footer in question tries to make it illegal for us even to
have the message in our mail archives. If I were running the PG lists,
I would install filters that automatically reject mails containing such
notices, with a message like "Your corporate lawyers do not deserve to
have access to the internet. Go away until you've acquired a clue."

I fully support Bruce's demand that patches be submitted with no such
idiocy attached.

regards, tom lane