On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:40:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > ... I believe he used PostgreSQL Inc.
> > because it is a legal entity, vs. the development team, which is not.
>
> Right. Although IANAL, I'm pretty sure it's pointless to slap a
> copyright notice on something unless the copyright names an actual
> legal entity (one which could go sue an infringer, if necessary).
> The development team is not a person, corporation, or partnership,
> so in the eyes of the law it doesn't exist.
>
> I seem to recall some discussion of creating a separate legal entity
> to hold the copyright, but offhand I don't see what it buys us
> except more paperwork. The same people (ie, the core developers)
> would have the final say over what either that entity or PostgreSQL,
> Inc does, so what's the difference?
>
Ah, corporate assets? What if someone bought out PostgreSQL, Inc., for
a huge sum of money. They'd get control of anything PostgreSQL, Inc.
has control over. One can't buy out a non-profit organization.
Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005