He does make a point ... if there is only one copyright holder, even if
right now its a non-entity, if someone like Oracle came along, *created* a
legal entity called 'The PostgreSQL Global Development Group', they could,
in theory, change the License wihtout needing to get approval from
current/past contributors ...
by retaining accreditation/copyright for those contributing the code, like
other projects do do, then changing the license becomes that much more
difficult ... no?
Example, wu-ftpd:
/****************************************************************************
Copyright (c) 1999,2000 WU-FTPD Development Group.
All rights reserved.
Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California.
Portions Copyright (c) 1993, 1994 Washington University in Saint Louis.
Portions Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Portions Copyright (c) 1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Portions Copyright (c) 1998 Sendmail, Inc.
Portions Copyright (c) 1983, 1995, 1996, 1997 Eric P. Allman.
Portions Copyright (c) 1997 by Stan Barber.
Portions Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Landfield.
Portions Copyright (c) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Use and distribution of this software and its source code are governed
by the terms and conditions of the WU-FTPD Software License ("LICENSE").
If you did not receive a copy of the license, it may be obtained online
at http://www.wu-ftpd.org/license.html.
$Id: extensions.c,v 1.48 2000/07/01 18:17:38 wuftpd Exp $
****************************************************************************/
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
attention to if you're redistributing.
It is very good to keep everything consistent.
Yup, that's all we're after.
It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it
will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a
non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright
claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized
legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone
to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
