Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > > I am not sure, but I think that Alvaro's point is the copyright
> > > doesn't matter in this instance. It is the license that does.
> >
> > Certainly, but if the file says "Copyright PostgreSQL Global Development
> > Group" then it's reasonable to assume that the intended license is the
> > one in the top COPYRIGHT file. If the file says copyright someone else
> > then this requires a bit of a leap of faith. If the file actually
> > contains its own license language (as Jan's files did till just now)
> > then that's unquestionably an independent license that you have to pay
> > attention to if you're redistributing.
> >
> > > It is very good to keep everything consistent.
> >
> > Yup, that's all we're after.
> >
>
> It would be very good if it wasn't likely to cause more legal trouble than it
> will help. Removing copyrights from actual people to be replaced with a
> non-existent legal entity might be construed as eliminating any copyright
> claim at all. Even if you could get the global development group recognized
> legally as the copyright holder, you've only consolidated things for someone
> to attempt to gain ownership of the code.
With the BSD license, there really isn't any restriction to enforce, so
the copyright owner is pretty meaningless.
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +