Re: [HACKERS]

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Gonna have to concur with that. Not that the sig is legally binding
> anyway, we do need to have a disclaimer in the email stating that you
> are assigning to PGDG

I think it's pretty silly to start caring about this now. Do you think
that in the absence of any signature/disclaimer attached to a patch,
then the copyright for the change is "implicitly" assigned to PGDG? (I'm
not a lawyer, but I believe that's not the case.)

-Neil