Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:12:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: >> I'm not a lawyer and I make no judgement on how solid a practice this >> is but that's VMware doesn't seem to be doing anything special here. >> They can retain copyright ownership of their contributions as long as >> they're happy releasing it under the Postgres copyright. Ideally they >> wold also be happy with a copyright notice that includes all of the >> PGDG just to reduce the maintenance headache.
> Yes, completely true, and I was not clear on that myself either. > Several people pointed out similar user copyrights in our existing code, > which I then realized were not a problem. As long as the copyright > details are the same as our code, anyone can hold the copyright, I > think. You're both being quite sloppy about the difference between "copyright" and "license". The point is correct though: what we care about is that everybody releases their work under the same *license terms*. As long as that's the case, we don't care terribly much exactly who holds copyright on which parts of the code. (In this analysis, "PGDG" is basically a shorthand for "everybody who's ever contributed anything".) > Part of my concern was patents. Because VMWare asserts patents on > Postgres enhancements, when I saw VMWare copyright code, my "concern" > antenna went up and was glad to find it had all be handled by Heikki > already. Yes, patents are a different and much nastier can of worms. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers