Re: [HACKERS] Copyright

At 17:40 28/01/00 -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?

Just curious, but why was this route chosen at all? The copyright of
original code presumably resided with the original developers (who may have
assigned it somewhere), and the copyright for modifications would reside
with their authors, who also have to assign it to PostgreSQL, Inc (in
writing), if it is to be binding (at least where I come from).

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to release PostgreSQL on a GPL or LGPL or
similar which requires the authors who wish to contribute to do the same?

I must admit I am a little paranoid about what amounts to a concentration
of power. I have no idea who owns PostgreSQL, Inc, but let's suppose the
owners die and it is found that they are in debt. Then the debtors come
along and try to work out how much the copyright of PostgreSQL is worth. It
could get very messy.

Similary, let's just assume the owners get bored, move on to other things
etc (like the original developers did). New developers may be held back by
doing work for these, now, faceless people. Similaryl, the 'old guard' may
not see the new developers as worthy of the mantle, so might withold the
code (this *could* be good).

As I said, I'm paranoid, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to do an open
source project. There also seems to be a potential conflict of interest, if
PostgreSQL is a company that also does consulting and customization of
PostgreSQL.

Just my 0.02c, and I'm sure that the current owners have the best of
intentions, but most legal problems (eg. GIF/LZW/Unisys) are born out of
people changing their minds about something.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498)             |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422            |                 _________  \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430            |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/