Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt<jay.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Should it be something like
Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?
To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN
and GitHub, not for a contribution to the PostgreSQL distribution. It will
differ greatly from contrib/cube when it's done, but cube is the scaffolding
I'm starting with.
That said:
Q: Doesn't the PostgreSQL license itself require to keep the copyright
notice intact?
A: Yes, it does. And it is, because the PostgreSQL Global Development
Group covers all copyright holders.
Is that true for separately-distributed extensions as well - if I push this
to GitHub, my company is part of the PGDG? Where is the PGDG defined?
If not (and perhaps even if so), I think I could still add an additional
copyright notice without violating the license, since the copyright notice
and following two paragraphs still appear in all copies. But perhaps it's
not necessary.
I think the edge case is something stupid like "In five years, there is no
remaining contrib code, and we get bought by MonsantoOracleHalliburton, and
they want to close-source the code in a way that's somehow incompatible with
the PostgreSQL license.. can they?"
But that does raise two other points:
- cube seems to post-date any work at UC. Should I still include the
"Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California"?
- Technically, the license could be read such that "the above copyright
notice" (singular) refers to the UC copyright notice but not the PGDG
notice; next time the lawyers run through it, you might want to add an "s"
to "notices"..
Jay
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
