@@ -373,6 +373,26 @@ CLA if they fall under the rubric of [obvious fixes](https://cla.pivotal.io/abou
However, since our GitHub workflow checks for CLA by default you may find it
easier to submit one instead of claiming an "obvious fix" exception.
### Licensing of Greenplum contributions
If the contribution you're submitting is original work, you can assume that Pivotal
will release it as part of an overall Greenplum release available to the downstream
consumers under the Apache License, Version 2.0. However, in addition to that, Pivotal
may also decide to release it under a different license (such as [PostgreSQL License](https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/) to the upstream consumers that require it. A typical example here would be Pivotal
upstreaming your contribution back to PostgreSQL community (which can be done either
verbatim or your contribution being upstreamed as part of the larger changeset).
If the contribution you're submitting is NOT original work you have to indicate the name
of the license and also make sure that it is similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0.
Apache Software Foundation maintains a list of these licenses under [Category A](https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a). In addition to that, you may be required to make proper attribution in the
[NOTICE file](https://github.com/greenplum-db/gpdb/blob/master/NOTICE) file similar to [these examples](https://github.com/greenplum-db/gpdb/blob/master/NOTICE#L278).
Finally, keep in mind that it is NEVER a good idea to remove licensing headers from
the work that is not your original one. Even if you are using parts of the file that
originally had a licensing header at the top you should err on the side of preserving it.
As always, if you are no quite sure about the licensing implications of your contributions
feel free to reach out to us on the developer mailing list.
### Coding guidelines
Your chances of getting feedback and seeing your code merged into the project
