Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if
you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text:
liPostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a
patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you
I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if
you also think it is rare, I will remove that distinction. New text:
liPostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a
patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the
PostgreSQL
Global
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if you also
think it is rare, I will remove that
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
legal disclaimer in their signature.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with a big
legal
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
I don't think it is common. I didn't add that part, so if you also
think it is rare, I
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time someone submits a patch with no license but with
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time someone submits a
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
Every single time
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
made the point of the BSD license, and when they were
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the website and signed up, we
made the point of the BSD license,
On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when they went to the
Robert Treat wrote:
On Saturday 03 March 2007 13:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Oh, I just meant that when *new* people signup they are made aware of
the predetermined policy based on joining the group. That way there is
zero confusion because when
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
liPostgreSQL 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
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
liPostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the PostgreSQL
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
liPostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
to the public PostgreSQL mailling lists, you are giving the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
liPostgreSQL is licensed under a BSD license. By posting a patch
to the public PostgreSQL
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added to the developer's FAQ that we don't want
non-BSD-compatible licensed patches:
How frequently is this actually a problem?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
18 matches
Mail list logo
