Thread: The definition of PGDG
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Simon Riggs wrote: > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced. As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take a stab at it? IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux) or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may be what we actually have anyway. Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200711081016 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHMyqrvJuQZxSWSsgRAw0hAJ9DD2gwr4nlmeoPNPeifXTloWip6ACgwv9z WQTV1ccmRQ0EBbomxQUxeak= =zng7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 08 November 2007 10:38, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
> actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
> a stab at it?
>
> IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
> the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
> or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
> be what we actually have anyway.
>
> Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.
AFAICT we have the former (code is owned by respective owners). AIUI, in most
European countries copyright is considered naturally given rights that you
have and that you cannot give away. In the U.S., you can give copy rights
away, however you can only do so to a defined legal entity, of which the PGDG
is not one. This can change somewhat depending on country and depending upon
employer agreements, but since no one is employed by the PGDG, it's mostly
moot from what I can tell.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 03:38:29PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined > group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). This is an interesting question, and one that the IETF faced a number of years ago, winding up only recently. There are some possibly troubling bits of news in the various IETF archives on this topic (in particular, pay attention to the creation of the IETF trust). That said, I have some reason to believe that the actual problem was not that the copyright wasn't owned by a particular legal entity, but that there were some individuals who were more or less threatening to prevent any new work happening in order to satisfy their own agenda. The IETF decided to compromise under the circumstances. (This is about all I know of the topic.) All of that said, the creation of the IETF Trust has resulted in some nasty, corrosive discussions; significant legal costs; and a great deal of distraction from the actual work of producing standards. AFAICT, no harm was actually done over the years by the funny copyright notices on IETF documents. So I suggest to leave well enough alone for the time being. But I am not, to my chagrin, a lawyer; so if we think we need legal advice on this topic, I suggest we make a request to FG, asking for legal advice on the topic, "Do we need copyright assignment?" rather than the topic, "To whom should copyright be assigned?" > Is the PGDG actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take a > stab at it? Unless the "stabber" in question is actually a lawyer with specialisation in corporate holdings, I'd like to ask that prospective stabbers not do this. Bad formulations that might be used in any future legal discussion are in practice considerably worse than no formulation at all. A -- Andrew Sullivan Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we >> own the code and it is of course BSD licenced. > > As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined > group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG > actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take > a stab at it? As a non-lawyer I don't think this is an issue. The group exists, it's just that it's (merely) a group of individual people. Ie, the copyright is owned jointly by every contributor and that's all the notice is saying. The PGDG doesn't exist separately from the members as a legal person like a corporation might. It may be that the notice is insufficient for some legal purposes because it doesn't explicitly name a legal person. However under the Berne convention notices are actually irrelevant to claiming ownership anyways. The only impact an insufficient notice might have is to make it harder to sue for damages (we would still be able to sue to stop further infringement but not damages until after the notice). I suspect it's not actually true that it's insufficient notice but that's something a lawyer should be able to answer easily. I also am entirely skeptical that we care about being able to sue for damages. If this were a GPL project it might matter more. But given that it's BSD we're only interested in the copyright notices to protect ourselves from someone else claiming they wrote it and we're infringing. Not to be able to pursue someone else for infringing on our copyright. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!