Re: [HACKERS] Copyright

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:40:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > ... I believe he used PostgreSQL Inc.
> > > because it is a legal entity, vs. the development team, which is not.
> >
> > Right. Although IANAL, I'm pretty sure it's pointless to slap a
> > copyright notice on something unless the copyright names an actual
> > legal entity (one which could go sue an infringer, if necessary).
> > The development team is not a person, corporation, or partnership,
> > so in the eyes of the law it doesn't exist.
> >
> > I seem to recall some discussion of creating a separate legal entity
> > to hold the copyright, but offhand I don't see what it buys us
> > except more paperwork. The same people (ie, the core developers)
> > would have the final say over what either that entity or PostgreSQL,
> > Inc does, so what's the difference?
> >
>
> Ah, corporate assets? What if someone bought out PostgreSQL, Inc., for
> a huge sum of money. They'd get control of anything PostgreSQL, Inc.
> has control over. One can't buy out a non-profit organization.

One can't buy out open source software either ...

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org