| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gather Merge |
| Date: | 2016-11-04 13:42:32 |
| Message-ID: | 31326.1478266952@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't this say just "(c) 2016, PostgreSQL Global Development
>> Group"? Are we supposed to be blaming the University of California
>> for new files?
> If the new file contains a portion of code from this age, yes.
My habit has been to include the whole old copyright if there's anything
at all in the new file that could be considered to be copy-and-paste from
an existing file. Frequently it's a gray area.
Legally, I doubt anyone cares much. Morally, I see it as paying due
respect to those who came before us in this project.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-04 14:12:55 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-04 13:35:55 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |