> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
> > boilerplate, with approval of author.
>
> I really don't see why or how this is an improvement. But if no one
> else cares about it, so be it ...
>
> I wonder what would have happened if I had stuck my name in the
> autovacuum.c, pg_shdepend.c or multixact.c files (wow, I did really come
> up with all that stuff!) I know Tom hacked extensively on all of them,
> so his name would also be there :-)

I wonder why we do not remove copyright notice of UCB at all. It seems
a kind of double standard.

BTW, In my understanding contrib is the exception. As someone has
pointed out, contribs are "second citizen" and maybe are kicked out to
pgfoundry or whatever anytime if people think they are not appropreate
to live there. In this case the author of the module would not want
to waste of his/her time to rewrite the copyright notice...
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so
> > the copyright owner is pretty meaningless.
>
> if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the
> license?

You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If
someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to
their version.

--
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 6: explain analyze is your friend

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I think everyone realizes at this point that the PGDG is not
> an official legal entity, but do we at least have a modern
> statement from Core as to what it is unofficially? In other
> words, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is
> composed of ________
>
> My two cents: keep the individual copyrights in, or have each
> person sign a document transferring ownership to some
> other entity. (Just want to point out that MySQL has chosen
> the second option.

MySQL had to because they sell commercial versions that are non-GPL.

--
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 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so
>>> the copyright owner is pretty meaningless.
>>
>> if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the
>> license?
>
> You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If
> someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to
> their version.

'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >>> With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so
> >>> the copyright owner is pretty meaningless.
> >>
> >> if nobody owns the code, then who has to be consulted to change the
> >> license?
> >
> > You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If
> > someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to
> > their version.
>
> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?

Nothing. I think it is good.

--
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 6: explain analyze is your friend

>>
>> You can't. Berkeley keeps the license, and we add ourselves to it. If
>> someone else comes along, they can copyright it and add restrictions to
>> their version.
>
> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?
It becomes an issue should the license ever become contested.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
> 7615664
>


--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?

I wouldn't object to "Portions copyright Joe Blow" in addition to the
PGDG copyright notice. The big problem with the way that the plpgsql
and pltcl files stood was that they also had their own license notices,
which while generally BSD-like were not exactly the same as the top
COPYRIGHT file. That I think is a seriously bad idea. We ought to have
one and only one set of license terms for everything in the core
distribution.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
>> 'k, but what is wrong with "Portions copyright by ..." added to the
>> appropriate files? Why is that "A Bad Thing"?
>
> I wouldn't object to "Portions copyright Joe Blow" in addition to the
> PGDG copyright notice. The big problem with the way that the plpgsql
> and pltcl files stood was that they also had their own license notices,
> which while generally BSD-like were not exactly the same as the top
> COPYRIGHT file. That I think is a seriously bad idea. We ought to have
> one and only one set of license terms for everything in the core
> distribution.

re: license ... agreed

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> I think everyone realizes at this point that the PGDG is not
> an official legal entity, but do we at least have a modern
> statement from Core as to what it is unofficially? In other
> words, the PostgreSQL Global Development Group is
> composed of ________

Under international copyright law, the copyright is held by the authors
of the work, no matter what you write into a copyright notice, if any.
The only purpose of the copyright notices under discussion here is to
notify the recipient of the file that this file belongs to the
PostgreSQL source code, the authors of the code claim to have
copyright, and you should check the license before doing anything
further.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend