"Mark Woodward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, that's not true. At least in the USA, any entity that can be
> identified can own and control copyright. While it is true, however, that
> there can be ambiguity, an informal body, say "anarchists for stronger
> government," without charter or incorporation can own and control
> copyright.
> IANAL, but this is how it has been explained to me.
Hmm ... I was just answering a question about that on the -novice list.
It seems a pretty academic point to me: an unincorporated group with no
clear leadership might nominally own a copyright, but how are they going
to enforce it? Certainly I don't see any plausible candidates around to
go to court to enforce PGDG's copyright against someone. Even the core
committtee would likely get kicked out as not having standing to sue.
In my mind the real reason we stick "Copyright PGDG" in the sources is
just as a prophylactic against someone putting their own copyright on
the files and then trying to prevent anyone else from using the code.
Effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen ;-)
> "The PostgreSQL Global Development Group," who ever they may be, whatever
> they may be, can authorize transfer of copyright.
No doubt, but there is no one who can claim to speak for or act on
behalf of that group, so there is no way the authorization can happen.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
