Neil Conway wrote:
> 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.)
I think the issue is _explicit_ vs _implicit_. I think the email
signature was too explicit.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
