On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
> > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
>
> Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
> one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
> then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
> contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
> then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
> attention to if you're redistributing.
>
> > It is very good to keep everything consistent.
>
> Yup, that's all we're after.
>
It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it
will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a
non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright
claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized
legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone
to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
