> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 08 October 2004 12:14
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] CVS Commit by andreas: disable
> function owner for pgsql < 8.0 [Tony
>
>
> Apparently I misunderstood that when I saw this in
> CHANGELOG.txt (e.g.
> on 2004-09-16).
Ahh, yes well, Ivan wrote that patch, so was creditted for it. The
changelog is a bit arbitrary though - some contributors get their
initials in their once they've become regulars, regardless of whether
they are committers or not. CVS is the 'one true record'.
> I never got the idea of licensing issues on a
> hint that an attribute was missing, but thought it would be a
> good idea to reflect the appreciation of user's feedback
> about pgadmin problems.
Oh, certainly we should note ppl who report stuff. I just want it to be
clear that they reported it rather than fixed it. For many years, I've
used the [Author's name] convention in our CVS.
> I don't object marking bug reporters in CHANGELOG.txt/cvs
> differently, but this seems not adequate for licensing
> issues. The nature of pgAdmin is quite clear, so anybody
> posting something here already does this under the Artistic
> Licence. For nontrivial extended code fragments contributed
> by non-devteam members we should add a comment "contributed
> by ..." in the sources.
Again, that's fine with me. My concern is twofold- 1) what if the
licence ever proves unusuable in court, we may then need to try to
contact authors of previous code to relicence it, or 2) if there is ever
a patent or IP claim against our codebase, we may need to be able to
tell who did what.
Regards, Dave.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
