Philip Warner wrote:
>
> Just curious, but why was this route chosen at all? The copyright of
> original code presumably resided with the original developers (who may have
> assigned it somewhere), and the copyright for modifications would reside
> with their authors, who also have to assign it to PostgreSQL, Inc (in
> writing), if it is to be binding (at least where I come from).
I'm curious about this as well. I have been under the impression that
the only barrier to someone taking postgresql and making a company out
of it, supporting and shipping postgresql, would be satisfying
whatever the original (Berkeley?) copyright terms were. I thought the
"leverage" that the core group holds here is simply that nobody else
has the technical familiarity with the software, and thus nobody else
could support it as well.
Does the core group, or Postgresql, Inc., or anyone else for that
matter, have any legal ownership/licensing rights over postgresql
beyond UCB?
Cheers,
Ed Loehr
