Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:42:12 -0500
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: The definition of PGDG
In-reply-to: <1577300971a22a6b93645e8256220378@biglumber.com>
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Cc: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Message-id: <200711081142.13183.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
References: <1577300971a22a6b93645e8256220378@biglumber.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1

On Thursday 08 November 2007 10:38, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
> actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
> a stab at it?
>
> IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
> the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
> or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
> be what we actually have anyway.
>
> Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.

AFAICT we have the former (code is owned by respective owners). AIUI, in most 
European countries copyright is considered naturally given rights that you 
have and that you cannot give away.  In the U.S., you can give copy rights 
away, however you can only do so to a defined legal entity, of which the PGDG 
is not one.  This can change somewhat depending on country and depending upon 
employer agreements, but since no one is employed by the PGDG, it's mostly 
moot from what I can tell.  

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL