> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
>> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however,
>> that
>> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
>> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
>> copyright.
>
>> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
>
> Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
> It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
> clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
> to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
> go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
> committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.
>
> In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
> just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
> the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
> Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
What's the point of the copyright in the first place? Why not explicitly
put it in the public domain like SQLite?
>
>> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be,
>> whatever
>> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
>
> No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
> behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.
Then, what you are saying, is that anyone could come along and create a
paper trail calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Global Devlopment Group,"
and claim ownership.
