Re: responses to licensing discussion - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Chris Bitmead
Subject Re: responses to licensing discussion
Date
Msg-id 3962C392.C941F82B@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: responses to licensing discussion  (Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>)
Responses Re: responses to licensing discussion  (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>)
List pgsql-general
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
> >Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
> >from the code?
>
> Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
> That's why they're there.

Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of getting sued by someone you
have no contract with is pretty tenuous.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Revised Copyright: is this more palatable?
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] proposed improvements to PostgreSQL license