Re: [PATCHES] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: [PATCHES]
Date
Msg-id 1172627479.4420.29.camel@neilc-laptop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES]  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES]  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 16:20 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Thus we may literally not have rights to the code. Do you really want to
> go down the path of in 2 years, Fujitsu (No offense Fujitsu), but you
> are the topic) decides that the code they provided is owned by them and
> they didn't give us permission?

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.

-Neil



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Next
From: Galy Lee
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2