Copyright notice for contrib/cube?

I'm basing an extension off contrib/cube. I'm going to open-source it under
the existing PostgreSQL license, but I'm not sure how the copyright notice
should look - there isn't one at the moment. (In fact, there's no LICENSE or
COPYRIGHT file at all.)

Should it be something like

Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.

?

Jay

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Should it be something like
>
> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.

Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:

Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?
A: No, please don't. We like to keep the legal information short and
crisp. Additionally, we've heard that could possibly pose problems for
corporate users.

Q: Doesn't the PostgreSQL license itself require to keep the copyright
notice intact?
A: Yes, it does. And it is, because the PostgreSQL Global Development
Group covers all copyright holders. Also note that US law doesn't
require any copyright notice for getting the copyright granted, just
like most European laws.

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ

Regards,
Marti

Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 17:42, Jay Levitt<jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Should it be something like
>>
>> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2011, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>> Portions Copyright (c) 2012, TipTap Inc.
>
> Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
>
> Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?

To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN
and GitHub, not for a contribution to the PostgreSQL distribution. It will
differ greatly from contrib/cube when it's done, but cube is the scaffolding
I'm starting with.

That said:

> Q: Doesn't the PostgreSQL license itself require to keep the copyright
> notice intact?
> A: Yes, it does. And it is, because the PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group covers all copyright holders.

Is that true for separately-distributed extensions as well - if I push this
to GitHub, my company is part of the PGDG? Where is the PGDG defined?

If not (and perhaps even if so), I think I could still add an additional
copyright notice without violating the license, since the copyright notice
and following two paragraphs still appear in all copies. But perhaps it's
not necessary.

I think the edge case is something stupid like "In five years, there is no
remaining contrib code, and we get bought by MonsantoOracleHalliburton, and
they want to close-source the code in a way that's somehow incompatible with
the PostgreSQL license.. can they?"

But that does raise two other points:

- cube seems to post-date any work at UC. Should I still include the
"Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California"?

- Technically, the license could be read such that "the above copyright
notice" (singular) refers to the UC copyright notice but not the PGDG
notice; next time the lawyers run through it, you might want to add an "s"
to "notices"..

Jay

Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>> Please don't add that, just change 2011 to 2012. This is what the wiki says:
>> Q: May I add my own copyright notice where appropriate?

> To clarify, this is for an extension to be distributed separately on PGXN
> and GitHub, not for a contribution to the PostgreSQL distribution. It will
> differ greatly from contrib/cube when it's done, but cube is the scaffolding
> I'm starting with.

If you don't have any ambitions of eventually getting the code into
Postgres contrib or core, then you can pretty much add any copyright
notice or terms you like. The wiki text Marti is quoting is only meant
to cover code that is submitted for inclusion in Postgres.

> - cube seems to post-date any work at UC. Should I still include the
> "Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California"?

We typically do that even in new files, on the grounds that there is
almost always a certain amount of copying-and-pasting involved in a new
file, and so some part of it could be traced to UCB if you tried hard
enough. In any event, if we were to get really anal about it, we'd be
trying to have the exact same copyright notice in every single file,
and that one-size-fits-all version would definitely have to credit UCB.

regards, tom lane