I have added this to the developer's FAQ to clarify the situtation of
posting a patch:

    <li>PostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license.  By posting a patch
    to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
    Global Development Group the non-revokable right to distribute your
    patch under the BSD license.  If you use code that is available under
    some other license that is BSD compatible (eg. public domain), please
    note that in your email submission.</li>


Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> >> For the case in question, sure, requiring some clarification from FJ
> >> would be reasonable. But more broadly, my point is that I think you're
> >> fooling yourself if you think that requiring a disclaimer or explicit
> >> transfer of copyright for this *one* particular patch is likely to make
> >> any material difference to the overall copyright status of the code
> >> base.
> > Yes, I do.  If there is an explicit claim, like an email footer or a
> > copyright in the code, we do try to nail that down.
> AFAICT, the footer in question tries to make it illegal for us even to
> have the message in our mail archives.  If I were running the PG lists,
> I would install filters that automatically reject mails containing such
> notices, with a message like "Your corporate lawyers do not deserve to
> have access to the internet.  Go away until you've acquired a clue."
> I fully support Bruce's demand that patches be submitted with no such
> idiocy attached.
>                       regards, tom lane

  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 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to