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]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to