On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Andrew Chernow wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Greg Stark wrote: > > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the > > > > >> whole source tree considiered one work? > > > > > > > > > > One work, I assume. > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in > > > > every source file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only > > > > have to be one notice. > > > > > > Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other > > > projects. > > > > I think the correct resolution to the question is to ask legal. Yes? > > So I can get three different answers? It is not a priority for me. >
Nor does it need to be... copyright for organizations runs ~ 100 years, so a year here or there is unlikely to make much difference to any of us. (Though for future generations, we'd probably have been better off not having a copyright notice at all). -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
