On 2013-05-28 14:50:57 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 08:37:44PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2013-05-28 14:32:07 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > We have a lot of code in PostgreSQL source tree with different
> > > > copyright notices, and there's no problem with that as long as the
> > > > coe is licensed under the PostgreSQL license. For patches that add
> > >
> > > Really? Where? I think we have removed them all, as far as I know.
> > > A quick grep shows:
> > >
> > > $ grep -r 'Portions Copyright'|egrep -v 'Global|Regents'
> > > ./src/backend/regex/regexport.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1998, 1999 Henry Spencer
> > > ./src/backend/regex/regprefix.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1998, 1999 Henry Spencer
> > > ./src/include/regex/regexport.h: * Portions Copyright (c) 1998, 1999 Henry Spencer
> > > ./src/include/getopt_long.h: * Portions Copyright (c) 1987, 1993, 1994
> > > ./src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_directory.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 2000, Philip Warner
> > > ./src/port/getopt_long.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1987, 1993, 1994
> > > ./src/port/getopt_long.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 2003
> >
> > Just remove the "Portions" part from your grep, and you will see quite
> > some more...
>
> Oh, I see. Have we historically been OK with these as long as it is
> clear it is the PG copyright? I know we had do some cleanups in the
> past, but I don't remember the details, obviously.
I don't see a problem with a different copyrights as long as the
licenses are compatible. I remember code getting (re-)moved because it
was GPL, which is a different thing to having a different copyright.
I don't have a all that wide look over the history though.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
