Neil Conway wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Gonna have to concur with that. Not that the sig is legally binding > > anyway, we do need to have a disclaimer in the email stating that you > > are assigning to PGDG > > I think it's pretty silly to start caring about this now. Do you think > that in the absence of any signature/disclaimer attached to a patch, > then the copyright for the change is "implicitly" assigned to PGDG? (I'm > not a lawyer, but I believe that's not the case.)
I think the issue is _explicit_ vs _implicit_. I think the email signature was too explicit. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
