Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt<>  wrote:
Should it be something like

Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.

Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:

Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?

To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN and GitHub, not for a contribution to the PostgreSQL distribution. It will differ greatly from contrib/cube when it's done, but cube is the scaffolding I'm starting with.

That said:

Q: Doesn't the PostgreSQL license itself require to keep the copyright
notice intact?
A: Yes, it does. And it is, because the PostgreSQL Global Development
Group covers all copyright holders.

Is that true for separately-distributed extensions as well - if I push this to GitHub, my company is part of the PGDG? Where is the PGDG defined?

If not (and perhaps even if so), I think I could still add an additional copyright notice without violating the license, since the copyright notice and following two paragraphs still appear in all copies. But perhaps it's not necessary.

I think the edge case is something stupid like "In five years, there is no remaining contrib code, and we get bought by MonsantoOracleHalliburton, and they want to close-source the code in a way that's somehow incompatible with the PostgreSQL license.. can they?"

But that does raise two other points:

- cube seems to post-date any work at UC. Should I still include the "Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California"?

- Technically, the license could be read such that "the above copyright notice" (singular) refers to the UC copyright notice but not the PGDG notice; next time the lawyers run through it, you might want to add an "s" to "notices"..


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to