Re: [HACKERS] - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: [HACKERS]
Date
Msg-id 1172620093.4420.4.camel@neilc-laptop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS]  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS]
Re: [HACKERS]
List pgsql-patches
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Gonna have to concur with that. Not that the sig is legally binding
> anyway, we do need to have a disclaimer in the email stating that you
> are assigning to PGDG

I think it's pretty silly to start caring about this now. Do you think
that in the absence of any signature/disclaimer attached to a patch,
then the copyright for the change is "implicitly" assigned to PGDG? (I'm
not a lawyer, but I believe that's not the case.)

-Neil



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Matteo Beccati
Date:
Subject: Re: Small patch to compile on IRIX 6.5 with gcc
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS]