Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright > > > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does. > > > > Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development > > Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the > > one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else > > then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually > > contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now) > > then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay > > attention to if you're redistributing. > > > > > It is very good to keep everything consistent. > > > > Yup, that's all we're after. > > > > It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it > will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a > non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright > claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized > legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone > to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so the copyright owner is pretty meaningless. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
