"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> ... In regards to your idea of a filter, there is no reason why
> we couldn't install a filter that checks for signatures with specific
> legal words and strips said signature automatically, responding to the
> sender that we did so.

The problem is that if $SENDER's corporate lawyers actually think that
it means something to put a restriction-of-rights notice on a message
sent to a public mailing list, then they might think that posting the
message with the notice stripped represents a violation of their barren
intellectual property :-(. What I'd like us to do is bounce it back.
A slightly cleaner version of the notice might be "If you wish to post
this message on our worldwide mailing lists, and thereby make unrepaid
use of our redistribution and archiving resources, then you may not
assert the right to restrict redistribution of your message."

Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(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

> Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
> in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
> Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
> same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
> real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".

Well the problem is, it isn't the guy that sent the patch that is the
idiot. That guys has zero control over the matter, the signature is
going to be tacked on at the MTA level.

I talked to my attorneys about this problem (not specific to postgresql
but in general) because my CPAs also have the same type of notice.

My attorney's response was that it is all about disclosure and covering
your butt. Not ours, but theirs. The idea being that they can say, "Look
we sent out the confidential disclosure, it isn't our fault the
recipients didn't listen."

Of course the joke here is, that the email went out on a public list and
is now mirrored all over the world and harvested by every spammer on the
planet

However, it may be a good idea to have our (SPI) attorney at least give
us an official word on the matter. Thoughts?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> ... In regards to your idea of a filter, there is no reason why
>> we couldn't install a filter that checks for signatures with specific
>> legal words and strips said signature automatically, responding to the
>> sender that we did so.
>
> The problem is that if $SENDER's corporate lawyers actually think that
> it means something to put a restriction-of-rights notice on a message
> sent to a public mailing list, then they might think that posting the
> message with the notice stripped represents a violation of their barren
> intellectual property :-(. What I'd like us to do is bounce it back.
> A slightly cleaner version of the notice might be "If you wish to post
> this message on our worldwide mailing lists, and thereby make unrepaid
> use of our redistribution and archiving resources, then you may not
> assert the right to restrict redistribution of your message."
>
> Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
> in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
> Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
> same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
> real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".

I think "we don't accept patches from idiots" is a bit harsh.
There are quite a few skilled developers out there working for large
companies that are not doing most of their day-to-day business with OSS
software(and therefor know how to interact with the community).
Working in such a large environment requires one to use the tools and
infrastructure provided by the company - while I fully agree that email
sigs are one of the more stupid things it is often something the
individual person might not even know about (gets added at the gateway)
or can do much about it.

Stefan

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

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Well the problem is, it isn't the guy that sent the patch that is the
> idiot. That guys has zero control over the matter, the signature is
> going to be tacked on at the MTA level.

Sure, I know that and you know that. The problem we have to worry about
is that some PHB might later decide to sue us based on our having
ignored the pasted-on disclaimer. Now either the disclaimer means
something, in which case we had better cover our own butts by not
putting a restricted communication into our archives; or else it means
nothing, in which case the submitter can perfectly well resubmit it
without. But the present situation in which we accept and repost
messages containing these sorts of restrictions is the worst of all
possible worlds, because *we* can get sued if anyone is unhappy. Now
that is exactly the result desired by your standard corporate lawyer;
he's been trained to shift blame off his company onto any available
target. But I say it's not necessary, wise, nor moral for us to accept
such liability.

As to the original point, though: if the guy who sent the patch cannot
control the legalistic notices appended to his email, we must surely
not suppose that he has legal ownership of his work product. We need
a certification from his corporate lawyers that they won't sue us for
accepting the patch. If they don't feel the need for such formalities,
they should signal the world by not appending dam-fool notices to every
outgoing email.

regards, tom lane

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

> > Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
> > in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
> > Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
> > same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
> > real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".
>
> I think "we don't accept patches from idiots" is a bit harsh.


I agree, after all, you've accepted some of my patches and... oh,
wait...


-- Korry

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 <bruce@momjian.us> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> 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?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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>


We should add this to the mailing list signup pages and the welcome
pages to the lists.

Joshua D. Drake


>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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>
>

We are happy to do this for every patch we submit. We can add an explicit
statement which will put our contribution under the BSD license. This
statement will override the email signature and will be approved by the
appropriate person.

Rgds,
Arul Shaji


>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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
This is an email from Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd, ABN 27 003 693 481. It is confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy or forward all or any of it or its attachments. If you receive this email in error, please return to sender. Thank you.

If you do not wish to receive commercial email messages from Fujitsu Australia Software Technology Pty Ltd, please email unsubscribe@fast.fujitsu.com.au


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

FAST PostgreSQL wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> 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>
>>
>
> We are happy to do this for every patch we submit. We can add an explicit
> statement which will put our contribution under the BSD license. This
> statement will override the email signature and will be approved by the
> appropriate person.
>
> Rgds,
> Arul Shaji

I know that I can speak for the community when I say, Thanks to you and
Fujitsu for taking our concerns into consideration.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


---------------------------(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

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:17 +1100, FAST PostgreSQL wrote:

> We are happy to provide that. If and when it comes to the final patch being
> accepted, we can send a copyright waiver mail which will put our source code
> contribution under the BSD license.

This approach is not practically workable and is a terrible shame.

What would happen if everybody said, "Well, since Fujitsu want to act
like that, we won't grant a BSD licence on our material until they grant
a BSD licence on theirs." Deadlock.

How do we know that you'll ever give that waiver? What would stop you
from making contributions right up to the last minute, receiving lots of
useful feedback, then at the last minute pulling the patch, once you
think its got no problems in it? If you do this, how will any of us fend
off *our* corporate lawyers who would like to do the same (probably)? Or
did you think the various companies on this list don't have any?

I provided my detailed implementation thoughts on the initial proposal.
Should I ignore posts from Fujitsu in the future because of this issue?

Open source requires trust, not legal brinkmanship. If you're even
thinking of submitting patches here, then it should already be clear
that the people on this list are better friends to you than people from
other companies who provide non-PostgreSQL-based services and products.
If you don't believe that, it seems better not to post at all.

I'll trust you, and hope that you'll grow to trust others back.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

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